This chapter aims to provide previous researches related to career development issues. The chapter is divided into three sections: psychological contract breach, intention to leave, and career plateau. The first section is psychological contract breach between employers and employees. The second section is the framework of intention to leave, which includes the definition and concept of employee turnover intention. The last section covers definition and content of career plateau, which is divided into hierarchical career plateau and job content career plateau.
Psychological Contract Breach
The concept of the psychological contract had been substantially discussed and became popular issue in the organization, since it offered plenty of explanations for the complications in the employment relationship which happened a lot in many organizations currently (Noer, 1993).
The earliest concept of psychological contract was introduced by Argyris (1960), and it became even well-known by Levinson et al. (1962), and Schein (1978).
Afterward, the definition of psychological contract was defined by scholars. For instances, Herriot et al. (1997) defined that psychological contract as “the perception of mutual obligations to each other by two parties in the employment relationship, the organization and employee” (p.151). Wellin (2007) presented that psychological contract could add value not only to the employees but also to the organization. If there was a clear and positive psychological contract would help organization support their employees and also increase employees’ engagement and commitment to the organization.
There was another issue that had been debated for a long time in the historical studies, which was whether both employer and employees perspective should be taken into account. In earlier studies, (Kotter, 1973; Levinson et al., 1962) all presented that psychological contract included bilateral perspective which both employee and employer perspective should be contained. Later, Rousseau (1990) proposed a new unilateral viewpoint about psychological contract which meant that the psychological contract should focus on the employee only. Hence, more and more researches have followed the concept of unilateral perspective which was concluded by Rousseau.
However in the recent studies, there were some researchers advocating that psychological contract should put more emphasis on employer again. Sturges, Guest and Conway (2002) suggested that if it only focused on employee’s perspective, it might distort the core value of psychological contract which was mutual obligation between each party. Moreover, this bilateral approach had been progressively supported.
According to Rousseau’s (1990) research with 224 MBA graduates, there were two main different dimensions of employee obligation. These two dimensions were relational contract and transactional contract. To be more specifically, the transactional obligations of employer in the psychological contract contained competitive salary, benefits and pay linked to performance. And the relational obligations of employer in the psychological contract include training, job security, career development, fairness and justice in personnel procedures, promotional opportunities and so on.
Transactional psychological contract included monetary exchange during a specific period. It occurred in the case of temporary employment or recruitment by buying-oriented firms (Miles & Snow, 1980). Such transactional contracts took place in lots of high tech companies and temporary employment companies for
acquiring people with specific skills to meet current demands. Hence, the characteristics of transactional contract focused on economic, closed-ended and specific time frame, narrow scope, static stability and easily observable. Transactional contract might be used during the probationary period in the organization. Employees who successfully finished three-month probationary period would be designated as a permanent employee. Specifically, people with transactional contract had some traits which were highly competitive based on wage rates and lacked of long-term commitment (Rousseau, 1990).
In contrast, based on the research done by Miles and Snow (1980), relational psychological contract included not only monetary exchange but non-monetary as well. It was established on a long-term and broad relationship where there were both economic and emotional connections. It occurred in the case of making-oriented firms which typically would recruit new employees at entry level, develop, and train them to meet future demands. Relational contracts took place in the company such as IBM or other service-oriented companies (Miles & Snow, 1980). Hence, the characteristics of relational contract focused on economic, non-economic and socio-emotional, open-ended and indefinite time frame, prevalent scope, dynamic and subjective. To build up a long-term relationship with employee, service-oriented companies offered employees more development opportunities and a long-term career path within the companies (Rousseau, 1990). Table 2.3 shows Rousseau (1990) Contract Continuum.
Table 2.1.
Contractual Continuum
Transactional Contract Relational Contract
Focus Economic, extrinsic Economic and
Non-economic,
Socio-emotional, intrinsic Time frame Close-ended, specific Open-ended, indefinite
Stability Static Dynamic
Scope Narrow Pervasive
Tangibility Public, observe Subjective, understood Note. Adapted from “New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s obligations: A study of psychological contracts” by Rousseau (1990), Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389-400.
Except researching psychological contract, there had been more and more researches discussing about perceived psychological contract breach and violation.
Perceived psychological contract breach referred to an employee discovering there is unfairness in the social exchange process, and an employee did not receive expected outcomes for achieving his or her obligations from an organization (Morrison &
Robinson, 1997).Violation was defined as a feeling of anger, discomfort, injustice, and mistrust deriving from the organization that failed to complete its obligation to employees (Rousseau, 1989). Furthermore, these feeling of anger, mistrust, and betrayal would make employees dissatisfied with organization, caused them to have intention to leave, or eventually quit the present job.
Based on empirical studies of Rousseau (1995) and Rousseau & Parks (1993), relational psychological contracts would facilitate both positive personal and organizational outcomes better than transactional psychological contract. Certainly, from the previous studies done by Millward & Hopkins, (1998), Rousseau (1990) and Raja, Johns & Natlianis (2004), relational psychological contracts had been demonstrated to have a negative relationship with intention to leave. However,
according to some available theories and empirical researches, Robinson and Rousseau (1994) found that the individuals with psychological contract breach had lower job satisfaction, job performance, organizational commitment and higher intention to quit the job than those individuals without psychological contract breach.
Furthermore, perceived psychological contract breach and psychological contract violation would have a positive relationship with intention to leave and actual quit than those who did not perceived psychological contract breach at workplace (Robinson, 1996; Bunderson, 2001).
Thus, based on the empirical studies, the following hypotheses are drawn in this study:
Hypothesis 1:
Psychological contract breach is positively associated with intention to leave.
Intention to Leave
According to Tett and Myer’s (1993) study, turnover meant termination of an individual’s employment with a given company. Furthermore, Porter and Steers (1973) pointed out that an individual thinking of quitting was the next logical step after experienced dissatisfaction in the organization and intention to leave may be the last step prior to actual quitting. Hence, Mobley (1977) presented an empirical model of the employee decision process. In Mobley’s model, it recognized plenty of possible precursors of employee turnover as well.
There were ten blocks in the model of employee turnover decision process which were (a) evaluation of existing job, (b) experienced job satisfaction-dissatisfaction, (c) thinking of quitting, (d) evaluation of expected utility of search and cost of quitting, (e) intention to search for alternatives, (f) search for alternatives, (g) evaluation of alternatives, (h) comparison of alternatives and present job, (i) intention to leave or stay, and (j) quit or stay. Ten blocks of employee turnover decision process by scholar Mobley (1977) were listed below. Figure 2.1 provides Mobley’s (1977) Model of the employee turnover decision process.
Figures 2.1 Model of the employee turnover decision process
Source: adapted from “Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover” by Mobley (1977), Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 237-240.
There were large numbers of studies of turnover examining the direct relationship between turnover and job satisfaction (Tett & Myer, 1993). In the employee’s turnover process, there were several possible mediating steps between actual quitting and dissatisfaction. If employees experienced dissatisfaction on the job, employees may have alternative forms of withdraw. For example, employees had passive job behaviors or absenteeism. If the costs of quitting job were not so high or
A. Evaluation of Existing Job
B. Experienced Job satisfaction- Dissatisfaction
(Alternative forms of withdrawal, e.g. absenteeism)
C. Thinking of Quitting
D. Evaluation of Expected Utility of Search and Cost for Alternatives
E. Intention to Search for Alternatives
F. Search for Alternatives (Non-job related factors. e.g. transfer spouse)
G. Evaluatuion of Alternatives
H. Comparison of Alternatives vs. Present Job
I. Inteniton to Leave
J. Quit/ Stay (impulsive behavior)
the expected utility of searching a new job was high, an individual might have behavior intention to search for alternatives. Moreover, there were some non-job related factors influencing an individual’s intention to search. For instance, employee might be affected by transfer of spouse or health problem and so on (Mobley, 1977).
After evaluating alternatives, an individual might compare alternatives with present job. If the comparisons agreed with alternative, an individual might be stimulated and had intention to leave. However, if the comparison preferred to present job, an individual might continue to find, re-evaluate cost of quitting, and reappraise the existing job until an employee purely accepted current state of affairs. Eventually an individual might reduce thoughts of quitting job or might undertake other forms of withdraw behavior. Therefore, turnover intention was regarded as a conscious and deliberate willfulness to leave the organization (Mobley, 1977). Turnover intention was identified as the strongest cognitive precursor of turnover (Lee & Mowday, 1987;
Michaels & Spector, 1982). In other words, intention to leave had been described as the last sequence of withdraw cognitions, and also could explain and predict the possibility of quitting the job (Carsten & Spector, 1987; Mobley, Horner &
Hollingsworth, 1978; Steel & Ovalle, 1984; Tett & Meyer, 1993).
Based on the study of Steers and Mowday (1981), there were two primary factors that would affect an individual to have intention to leave which were (a) affective responses to the job and (b) non-work variables. It was assumed that an individual’s affective responses to the job are the most significant in terms of subsequent behaviors in most models of the turnover process (Steers & Mowday, 1981).
Furthermore, Porter and Steers (1973) suggested that intention to leave was primarily influenced by three factors and in this system correlates were classified as (a) external factors, (b) structural or worked-related factors, and (c) personal characteristics of the employees. Firstly, external factors included unemployment rate,
accession rate and employment perceptions. Secondly, structure or work-related factors covered such as pay, job performance, opportunities, organization commitment, task repetitiveness and satisfaction with promotion. Lastly, personal characteristics of the employees contained age, gender, education, marital status, job tenure and ability.
Moderating Effect of Career Plateau
This section presents the literature concerning to career plateau. Before stating the career plateau, it is vital to clarify what this term implies. Many researchers had defined career plateau from different perspectives which were listed below:
Table 2.2.
Summary of Definitions: Career Plateau
Definitions Author(s)and year
Career plateau is defined as the point in one’s career at which the probability of a vertical assignment or a promotion in the near future is unlikely. plateauing: hierarchical and job content. Hierarchical plateauing is that when an individual has little chance of further vertical movement within an organization.
Job content plateauing is that when an individual is no longer challenged by his or her work or job responsibilities.
(Bardwick, 1986)
Career plateaus are no longer simply defined as an inability to
“move up” hierarchically in the organization but included other factors as well.
(Allen, 1999)
The feeling of frustration and psychological feebleness that employees to experience following and a temporary or permanent halt in the advancement of their careers.
(Rotondo &
Perrewe, 2000)
(continued)
Table 2.2. Summary of Definitions: Career Plateau (continued) Except career plateau, there is another life plateauing which refers to an individual feeling of being trapped or stuck in their roles outside of work.
(Burke &
Mikkelsen, 2006)
Career plateau is defined as the point in one’s career at which the likelihood of additional hierarchically promotion is very low or impossible.
(Ongori &
Angolla, 2009)
Career plateau is a very well-known theme that has been researched by plenty of researchers who developed various definitions. Although the career plateau has been diversely defined by scholars, all their definitions share the same basic concept which was referred to obstacles for promotion and less challenging job contents. In other words, career plateau meant an individual who could not get higher position in the organization or sensed that the job content and responsibility was no more challenging for himself or herself in the organization.
When it comes to the career plateau, the definition of career should be clarified before the discussion of career plateau. El-Sabaa (2001) defined professional careers included “an evolving sequence of work activities and positions that individuals experienced over time as well as the associated attitudes, knowledge and skill they developed throughout their life” (p. 3). However, employees might encounter some career issues or phenomenon such as the career plateau during the career path.
One of the most well-known studies about the career plateau theory is from Ference, Stoner, and Warren (1977), who developed the earliest concept of the career plateau which has been largely discussed and utilized since then. The definition of the career plateau was regarded as the point an individual at which the chance of up-right
promotion or advancement was pretty low or difficult; thus, it naturally led to individual’s career plateau in the organization (Ference, et al., 1977). However, some researchers cast doubts on the definition of career plateau. They thought if employees could have chance to grow and learn in the organization, which could decrease perceived career plateau. Therefore, there was another new definition of the career plateau which defined as the likelihood of not receiving further assignments of increased responsibility (Feldman & Weitz, 1988).
In the previous literatures of career plateau, scholars mentioned that there were four principal career states for employees in the model of managerial careers. The first of all was called learners or comers who did not accomplish current performance but had potential talents and possibility to be promoted in the future. The second one was named stars that had outstanding performance in the job. And stars were expected to be potentials to get higher position with organization. Those employees regarding as starts obtain lots of opportunities such as development programs to become a future leader in the organization. The third one was solid citizen who achieved satisfactory performance in the job but got less chance to be promoted in the organization. The last one was entitled as deadwood that did not perform pleasingly in the job and had very little or no chance for development (Appelbaum, 1994; Duffy, 2000; Ference et al., 1977). Table 2.2 shows Ference et al., (1977) Model of managerial careers.
Table 2.3.
A Model of managerial careers
Current Performance Likelihood of Future Promotion
Low High
Note. adapted from “Managing the career plateau” by Ference, T. P., Stoner, J. A., &
Warren, E. K. (1977), Academy of Management Review, 2, 602-612.
Actually, both solid citizens and deadwood were regarded the career plateau.
Furthermore, the solid citizens were effective plateau while deadwood was ineffective plateau (Ference et al, 1977). Compared to the stars and learners, solid citizens obtained less attention and care from the organization. To be more specifically, learners had large numbers of development chances, training opportunities and stars also had development programs in organization (Appelbaum, 1994). Deadwood employees were regarded as problems, so organization would list two choices for them. One was called rehabilitation, the other one was dismissal. Solid citizen with effective plateau must take care of themselves (Duffy, 2000). A significant task for organization career management to do was trying to prevent the solid citizen from becoming deadwood in the future. Organization should also keep employees working efficiently and being positive to deal with the situation when there was less promotion chance for well-performing employees (Appelbaum, 1994; Duffy, 2000; Ference et al, 1977; Foster et al, 2004).
Ference et al (1977) found that solid citizens with effective career plateau could be grouped into two categories. One was named organizational plateau which meant that employees had good performance in high level but there is a lack of openings to be further promoted to new position. More specifically, organizational plateau meant that when an individual had little chance of further vertical movement within an organization. The factors of fewer openings resulted from flattening organizations, economic limitation, narrowly pyramid structure organizations, outsourcing, and organization lacking of growth chance and related factors (Bardwick, 1986).
The other career plateau was called personal plateau which happen when employees lack of either the desire or the motivation to be promoted, or being unable to get higher position (Appelbaum, 1994; Ference, 1977). Actually personal plateau could be viewed as life plateau. Burke and Mikkelsen (2006) found that life plateauing referred to an individual feeling of being trapped or stuck in their roles outside of work.
Besides two types career plateaus definitions which were defined by Ference et al., (1977), some researchers also suggested different dimensions of career plateau.
Bardwick (1986) found that individuals might experience two forms of career related plateauing: hierarchical and job content. Hierarchical plateau meant that an individual had little chance of further vertical movement within an organization. Another one was called job content plateau which meant that an individual was no longer challenged by his or her work or job responsibilities. Milliman (1992) also divided career plateau into these two dimensions and established subjective instruments to evaluate an individual perceptions of both hierarchical and job content plateau.
According to Elsass and Ralston’s (1989) study, individuals had two ways to respond when dealing with career plateau stress. The first one was behavioral response (e.g., resigning from present job, increasing absenteeism without reasons)
and the other one was cognitive response (e.g., rationalization and denial of career plateau). Moreover, there were three different methods to deal with career plateau for individuals which were defense, reevaluation and transition.
The first method, defense, did not directly decrease individual’s perceived career plateau, but made them want to escape from the effect caused by career plateau.
Individuals minimized the discomfort by denial, passive acceptance, and accusing of poor work environment. Nevertheless, individuals who adopted the method of defense easily became deadwood eventually (Elsass & Ralston, 1989).
The second effective method to deal with career plateau was reappraisal. The stressed individuals may selectively ignore the indications or occurrences which resulted from career plateau and also tried to cognitively manipulate the meaning of career plateau. Individuals who selected reevaluation felt helpless and tried to withdraw from the job mentally. Therefore, managers became a vital role in supporting employee and should take the initiative action to help these employees face career plateau. According to Nelson’s research (1987), supportive communication from supervisors and co-workers was one of the strongest moderators of stress.
The third method to cope with career plateau was transition. Transition meant that individuals tried to alert or exclude the career plateau by adopting behavioral responses. For instances, employees may get a new role by lateral transition within the organization or try to find a new job outside and leave present organization (Elsass
& Ralston, 1989). Both reevaluation and transition methods would have positive and negative effects on organization as well as employees. Take reevaluation for example.
Employees who managed career plateau successfully would become more productive on performance. And for those employees who failed to manage career plateau well
the organization. Similarly, employees who adopted transition method would change into a new lateral position and learned new job skills, then became more productive
the organization. Similarly, employees who adopted transition method would change into a new lateral position and learned new job skills, then became more productive