Human Capital
Human capital is considered as “an investment that people make in themselves to increase their productivity” (Rosen, 1999, p.381). It can be developed through some factors such as education, experience, training, work habits and initiatives (Frank & Bernanke, 2007;
Law, 2010). Rodriguez and Loomis (2007) further explained that human capital includes the knowledge, skills, competencies and attributes in people and help them to form personal, social and economic comfort. Law (2010) argued that the individual with high level of human capital has higher motivation to move from one organization to another in order to increase the human capital for achieving higher employability status. According to Arthur and Rousseau (1996), the individual managing their own career paths will seize new and often different job opportunities to gain the training and enhance their human capital.
Competency-based Perspective
DeFillippi and Arthur (1994) suggested that competency-based view can be the useful base to study more about boundaryless career. It suggested that the career competencies will include the belief and identities, knowledge and skills, and the networks that individual could have (know-why, know-how and know-whom, respectively). Knowing-why relates to the individuals’ career motivation, personal meaning and identification, which will guide them about the career development. “Knowing how” competencies reflect the individual’s understanding of relevant skills and career-related knowledge and bring them the confidence to master the current and future jobs. “Knowing whom” refers to employees’ relevant networks, which supports them in learning knowledge and developing reputation. The understanding of career competencies will support individuals in valuing their skills, knowledge, networks or the mobility (Tams & Arthur, 2006).
Boundaryless Career Attitude
Conceptualization and Definition of Boundaryless Career Attitude
Boundaryless career attitude is one of the two new career attitudes which have gained special attention in the past years and have become increasingly relevant in today’s uncertain and rapid changing economy and working environment. DeFillippi and Arthur (1994) viewed the boundaryless career concept as “a sequence of job opportunities that goes beyond the boundaries of any single employment settings” (p.307). Arthur (1994) described boundaryless
6
career as the independence from, rather than dependence on traditional organizational career paths. The employees with boundaryless career attitude do not limit their career to a single employer but can move across the boundaries of several organizations. They tend to be maintained by external networks and information, or reject career opportunities due to family and personal reasons. In other words, these employees tend not to rely on the organizational promotions, career arrangement and paths but prefer dynamic employment and focus more on inter-organizational more than intra-organizational phenomena (Arthur & Rousseau, 2001).
Boundaryless career attitude is composed of two dimensions: boundaryless career mindset and organizational mobility preference. Boundaryless career mindset is regarding the people’s psychological mobility. The employees with boudaryless career mindset are illustrated to “navigate the changing work landscape by enacting a career characterized by different levels of physical and psychological movement” (Sullivan & Arthur, 2006, p.19).
The career actors hold this attitude to work across organizational boundaries with different experiences, jobs, and people because they will feel more comfortable and enthusiastic with working relationships beyond the organization boundaries. On the other hand, organizational mobility preference is about the people’s physical mobility. Organizational mobility preference refers to an attitude to conduct actual moves between different occupations, jobs and organizations. The employees with high organizational mobility preference will seek to work for various organizations and expand across the organizational boundaries by employing in other companies (DeFillippi & Arthur, 1994; Sullivan & Arthur, 2006).
Protean and Boundaryless Career Attitude
Protean and boundaryless career attitude may cause some confusion because of some similarities and association they share. However, protean career attitude and boundaryless career are distinct constructs (Briscoe & Finkelstein, 2009). Protean and boundaryless career attitude are both the new career perspectives, which have been dominant in the career literature reviews. These concepts appeared as a response to the changing nature of organizations and work since 1980’s. Protean career is a term derived from Greek god Proteus and was initially developed by Hall in 1976. Hall (1976) described protean career attitude as a self-directed orientation to the career that implies independence from external career influences. Briscoe and Hall (2002) extended the conceptualization with two dimensions, including the values driven which mean that the employees’ career success are guided and measured by the internal values and self-directed in personal career management which explains that the employee is able to adjust their performance and learning demands.
7
Briscoe and Hall (2006) stated that the protean career focuses on a self-directed approach to the career, which is motivated by their own values. Meanwhile, some authors explained that boundaryless career emphasizes the possibilities that the careers may have and how the employee can recognize and utilize of such opportunities leading to the career success (Arthur, 1994; DeFillippi & Arthur, 1994). Therefore, it can be seen that although there are some overlaps between these two, protean and boundaryless career attitude can still be viewed as independent yet related construct. It means that a person with protean attitude or self-directed attitude could still work well in a bounded career environment and one can hold boundaryless career attitude but not necessarily values-driven (Briscoe & Hall, 2006).
Organizational Commitment
The term organizational commitment has been developed since the 1960s in various ways focusing on the attachment between the employers and the employees and has attracted a great deal of attention from academic scholars. However, there is still the lack of consensus on the definition of the commitment in both theoretical and empirical researches (Buchanan, 1974; Schneider & Hall, 1972). Multiple definition and conceptualization of organizational commitment are found in the literature with different approaches. The first concept of organizational commitment was developed by Becker (1960) with the side-bet theory, which stated that the employees are committed to the employers because the employees have been investing in the organization with their time, effort, money or anything else important to them.
These valued investments would be lost if they leave the organization or occupation. When the side-bets are accumulated and the employees continue the employment in the organization, the commitment will increase (Becker, 1960; Meyer & Allen, 1984). Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian (1974) advanced organizational commitment as the linkage between employee and organization, in which the employees find their intention to remain and serve the organization, their identification with the organization’s goals and values; and their willingness to put substantial efforts for its prosperity and development. Hunt, Wood, and Chonko (1989) also defined organizational commitment as a psychological contract between employers and individuals to behave in the ways which are consistent with the organization’s goals.
Meyer and Allen (1984, 1991, 1997) illustrated the organizational commitment as a psychological state with 3-dimensional model, which reflects the desire, the need, and/or obligation to maintain membership in the organization. The first dimension, namely, affective commitment was developed as an assessment to the extent to which the individual presents
8
the desire to remain in the organization due to the emotional attachment to and the involvement with that organization. It means that the employees will evolve their emotional or affective attachment to the organization when they share the same goals and values with their organizations and are more likely to support the organizations to reach the goals (Ketchand & Strawser, 2001). The definition for the second dimension, continuance commitment as was described as the employee’s desire to retain the membership with the organization based on the perceived costs, both economic and social that employees have to suffer if they leave the organization. In 1990, they proposed the third dimension, normative commitment as the desire to remain in the organization due to the feeling of obligation. The employees feel loyal to the organization because they believe the right thing to do after receiving the benefits from the organization. This model has been widely regarded as the most dominant model in this field of research (Cohen, 2003). These three forms of commitment interact and explain employees’ psychological states that influence their decision to maintain the membership with the organization. Employees can experience all the three forms in various circumstances.
Regarding these three dimensionalities of organizational commitment, some authors used the either one or two same terminologies to describe the same concepts and some refer to the same definitions with different terminology with Meyer and Allen (1984, 1991, 1997).
For instance, the model of Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, and Sincich (1993) also has some similarities to that of Meyer and Allen (1991) with the affective and continuance and moral commitment. However, in Jaros et al.’s model (1993), the conceptualization of moral commitment respectively corresponds to Meyer and Allen’s definition of the affective commitment than to their definition of normative commitment. Another difference is that although both used the term “affective commitment” to refer to a feeling of emotional attach to the organization. Jaros et al. (1993) wanted to emphasize more on the actual affect experienced by employees than did Meyer and Allen (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).
Boundaryless Career Attitude and Organizational Commitment
Boundaryless career attitude is a very important element toward the career because it not only has a positive impact on employee outcomes but also on the employing organization. It is considered as a very good element to predict commitment (Fernandez & Enache, 2008).
However, the literature review suggested that few studies have been conducted on the relationship between boundaryless career attitude and organizational commitment. However, most of the researches on this relationship draw a negative relationship between boundaryless
9
career attitude and organizational commitment. It suggests that those with boundaryless career attitude will be likely to less commit to their organization (Briscoe & Finkelstein, 2009).
Boundaryless Career Mindset and Affective Commitment
Cakmak-Otluoglu (2012) stated that the boundaryless career mindset does not have directly statistical with affective commitment because the employees with high affective commitment decide to remain in the organization because they want to. Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009) also had the same conclusion and claimed that the organizations could expect the same level of affective commitment from those with boundaryless career mindset as the other employees. However, Fernandez and Enache (2008) found out that the employees with boundaryless career mindset exhibited a low affective commitment with the organization if the organization cannot provide them with the opportunities for personal growth and development. This statement seems to be more reasonable because the individual with boundaryless career mindset feels more comfortable and enthusiastic to cooperate with people outside. Therefore, they do not really develop emotional attachment with the organization. Therefore, the hypothesis is proposed as follows:
H1: There is a negative relationship between boundaryless career mindset and affective commitment
Organizational Mobility Preference and Affective Commitment
With respect to the organizational mobility preference, Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009) claimed that those with strong preference for organizational mobility were less emotionally attached to the organization in the sample of 434 graduate and postgraduate distance learning students. Enache, Sallan, Simo, and Fernandez (2013) and Cakmak-Otluoglu (2012) also indicated the significantly negative relationship between organizational mobility preference and affective commitment. It argued that the employees who like to cross organizational boundaries tend to have a weakly affective bond with their employing organization due to their high preference for physical mobility. These conclusions seem reasonable because the affective commitment is created when the employees feel happy to stay in the organizations with same goals and values while a person with organizational mobility preference would prefer moving across organizations. Therefore, we propose that organizational mobility preference will show a negative relationship with affective commitment.
H2: There is a negative relationship between organizational mobility preference and affective commitment
10
Boundaryless Career Mindset and Normative Commitment
Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009) yielded a result as a non-significant relationship between normative commitment and boundaryless career mindset. Likewise, Cakmak-Otluoglu (2012) argued that normative commitment describes the personal values or beliefs that they should remain with the organization and therefore, there is no direct relationship between boundaryless career mindset and normative commitment. They believed that these boundaryless career mindset can co-exist with organizational commitment and does not necessary equate with mobility. However, these empirical researches were conducted in the western context, which has a different culture with Vietnam. Meanwhile, Sullivan and Arthur (2006) stated that cultural values influence career attitudes. Western countries are more likely towards individualism while Vietnam as an Asian country is more likely towards collectivism.
In addition, the normative commitment refers to the moral obligation of employees to their organization. In that sense, it is antithetical to the conception of the boundaryless career mindset. Therefore, the researcher proposed a negative relationship between these two components
H3: there is a negative relationship between boundaryless career mindset and normative commitment
Organizational Mobility Preference and Normative Commitment
On the contrary, the organizational mobility preference was found to have the negative relationship with normative commitment. Briscoe and Finkestein (2009) claimed the same result on the relationship between organizational mobility preference and normative commitment. Cakmak-Otluoglu (2012) conducted the survey on 380 employees and yielded the same result. He explained that the normative commitment refers to employees’ feeling of moral obligation to the employers while the employees with organizational mobility are seeking opportunities to work beyond the organization and will not hesitate to leave the organization. Enache et al. (2013) did not test the relationship between these two components but they also believed in the negative relationship between normative commitment and organizational preference mobility. Therefore, I expect that:
H4: There is a negative relationship between organizational mobility preference and normative commitment
Boundaryless Career Mindset and Continuance Commitment
The study result conducted by Enache et al. (2013) illustrated that there is a marginally positive relationship between boundaryless career mindset and continuance commitment.
11
However, they also explained that “the relationship could be moderated by the extent to which individuals succeed in enhancing their social capital, which would, in turn, provide them access to the resources and the information other people possess and therefore help them discover different opportunities beyond organizational boundaries” (p. 892). So, with this explanation, they agreed that the relationship could become negative if the employees can enhance their internal and external networks across organizational boundaries. In addition, as explained above, continuance commitment was conceptualized based on Becker (1960)’s side-bet theory. The continuance commitment illustrated the situation in which the employees will take the perceived cost into consideration and therefore, they remain with the organization in order to minimize the cost but not be motivated by their desire (Meyer &
Allen, 1997). Meanwhile, the individuals with boundaryless career attitude tend to seek the opportunities outside and make themselves more valuable in the labor market (Briscoe et al., 2006). Based on this explanation, some researches hypothesized and proved the negative relationship between boundaryless career attitude and continuance commitment (Briscoe &
Finkelstein, 2009).
H5: There is a negative relationship between boundaryless career mindset and continuance commitment
Organizational Mobility Preference and Continuance Commitment
Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009) suggested that the organizational mobility preference and boundaryless mindset appear to have a strong negative relationship with continuance commitment. They believed that the individuals with high boundaryless career attitude will tend to leave an organization due to their independent nature regardless of some practical concerns. Enache et al. (2013) and Cakmak-Otluoglu (2012) also claimed the same result with the one mentioned above. It means the employees with high organizational mobility preference are less likely to stay committed to the employing organization. Therefore, the hypothesis is proposed as follows:
H6: There is a negative relationship between organizational mobility preference and continuance commitment
Organizational Career Management
“Career can be seen as the pattern of work-related experience that spans the course of a person’s life, an evolving sequence of a person’s work experience over time, the sequence of employment-related positions, roles, activities and experiences encountered by a person or as a process of development along a path of experience and roles in one or more organizations”
12
(Baruch, 2006, p.575). Nowadays, a new concept of career was developed to emphasize on individual development and extension within the job itself (Torrington, Hall, & Taylor, 1998).
Career management has been widely studied by many researchers because it is considered as one of the key factors for accomplishing the personal and organizational goals (Atkinson, 2002). Mayo (1991) viewed career management as the design and implementation of organizational processes that helps to plan and manage the career in a way that enhances both the desires of the organization, the preferences, and abilities of individuals. Another conception developed by Torrington et al. (1998) described that career management is something that is experienced by individuals. Therefore, it can be seen that career management is divided into two levels, including organizational career management and individual career management. Career management is viewed as the process developed, implemented and monitored by individuals. However, the organizations play a very important role in planning and managing for the employees’ development and should not be neglected (Baruch, 2006; Hall & Moss, 1998).
Organizational career management, also called as “organizational support for career development” or “organizational sponsorship”, refers to the activities, programs and assistance provided by organizations in order to help the employees with career development and career success while the individual career management is under the control of the individual (Orpen, 1994). Arnold and Mackenzie Davey (1994) illustrated organizational career management as a series of formal and less formal activities facilitated by the organization to support for their employees’ career development in order to improve the organizational performance. These activities aim to retain the employees and to help employees plan for their future career regardless whether they stay in same organization or transfer to another one. Kong, Cheung, and Zhang (2010) also defined organizational career management as activities initiated by organizations to support the success of their employees.
Organizational career management activities are comprised of formal activities such as training programs, personal development plans, formal career planning and informal activities such as mentoring and networking opportunities (Kraimer, Seibert, Wayne, & Liden, 2003; Sturges, Guest, Conway, & Davey, 2002). A variety of organizational career management practices had also been reviewed in the literature such as job rotation, job enrichment, employee workshops, and career progression ladders.
Many authors believed that organizational career management enhanced the development of organizational commitment (Sturges et al., 2002). When the employees’
expectations are met, by organizational career management, the employees would perform
13
better commitment and performance to the organization. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) claimed organizational career management as one form of perceived support, which has been positively related to job performance and negatively with turnover intention or absenteeism.
Moderating Effect of Perceived Organizational Career Management
Changing the working environment and nature of career can lead to changes in psychological contract between organizational and employees (Hall & Moss, 1998).
Developmental opportunities would create more attractiveness for remaining in the organization for boundaryless folks considering cost-benefit analysis and cause one to feel that they owe the organization something and need to stick around (Mowday & Colwell, 2003). Therefore, if the company can provide the employees with their developmental expectations, they will stay in the company even they hold boundaryless career attitude (Enache et al., 2013). This explanation is reasonable because the employees with boundaryless career tend to move across the organizations because they want to seize different developmental opportunities in order to enhance their social capital and obtain training or remain marketable (Sullivan & Arthur, 2006). Therefore, if they could find these opportunities inside the current company, they will stay remain.
In addition, organizational career management literature is found to facilitate career self-management and lead to be more commitment from their employees (Sturges, Conway, Guest,
& Liefooghe, 2005) because the employees perceive the values and support from organization (Enache et al., 2013). Career management can be seen as one form of perceived
& Liefooghe, 2005) because the employees perceive the values and support from organization (Enache et al., 2013). Career management can be seen as one form of perceived