LITERATURE REVIEW - Investigate the Moderating Effect of Perceived Organizational Learning Cult

This chapter is to review the previous literature researches and provides the background knowledge of three focal variables in this study including protean career orientation, intention to stay and organizational learning culture. All of the hypotheses are presented afterward.

Protean Career Orientation

Hall (1976) firstly mentioned the protean career in the book named Careers in Organizations, and conceived it as “a process which the person, not the organization, is

managing” (p.201). “Protean” was adopted from god Proteus, a characteristic in Greek mythology with the ability to change his shapes freely. In essence, the protean career highlights the adaptability, flexibility and self-direction.

Protean career orientation is the protean career concept’s progeny. It describes an individual’s career attitude to which a person’s inner value serves as a guide to action (Briscoe

& Hall, 2006; Hall, 2002). According to Briscoe and Hall (2006), protean career orientation is the attitude with a set of components, including cognitive (individuals’ beliefs about their own career), evaluative (individuals’ conception about bad or good career), behavioral (individuals’

tendency to behave in some certain situations). As such, protean career orientation is preferable to understand as a mindset of a person about their career, which reflects their intrinsic motivation and self-direction (Briscoe & Hall, 2006).

Self-direction represents an individual’s independence apart from external influences.

Particularly, self-direction marks the degree to which an individual considers their responsibility in the career (Briscoe et al., 2006; Mirvis & Hall, 1996). Employees with self-direction are fully responsible for making their own work-related decision and transfering the decisions in to actions by themselves (Briscoe et al., 2006; Segers, Inceoglu, Vloeberghs, Bartram, & Henderickx, 2008), rather than being relied on other decisions. Self-direction is a

pivotal point of the protean career orientation and presents the controlling and self-management of a person's career. Besides self-direction, the second factor of protean career orientation is the navigation of intrinsic value. Briscoe and Hall (2006) stated that intrinsic value plays a role as an instruction to make the career decision. In that sense, protean career orientation has two dimensions: self-direction which shows the independence and determination to achieve the personal goals, and value-driven orientation which motivates the employees to achieve the goals.

Combining the two characteristics, four types of personal careerists are created including reactive, rigid, dependent and protean (Briscoe & Hall, 2006). Firstly, the individuals who only have self-direction, not value-driven are considered as the reactive people. For these ones, they are proactive in working, but it is easy to get lost in the career journey because they do not have a clear guide to navigate their career. Rigid people are those who contrast with reactive people. Despite having self-value to direct the career trajectory, these people hardly achieve their desirable goals due to not self-direction. Without self-direction, these people depend on other people and have lack of proactive behavior to adapt for the development.

Thirdly, dependent careerists have neither self-direction nor value-driven. They are sidelined to set the priorities in their own career as well as be unable to manage their own career, but counting on others. Finally, individuals who own both self-direction and value-driven are full protean careerists. It means that they actively manage career by themselves and convey their value through the actions and decisions.

Since protean career orientation provides employees a sense of independence in career, and pursue the meaning of working, protean careerists have a different defintion of career sucess from traditional career sucess (De Vos & Soens, 2008; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001).

In the traditional concept, career success was defined as vertical mobility in an organization (De Vos, Dewettinck, & Buyens, 2008). People think their success in traditional career

regarding salary increase, job promotion and working power (Hall, 2002). However, career success, for protean careerists, can be defined in a very broad conception, for example the subjective career success (Hall, 2002). Subjective career success reflects an individual’s view whether she or he satisfies and accomplish the career goals in their career trajectory (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999; Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005). The subjective career success can be illustrated with various forms, for instance career satisfaction (De Vos & Soens, 2008;

Herrmann, Hirschi, & Baruch, 2015), work-life balance (Direnzo et al., 2015), psychological well-being (Rahim & Siti-Rohaida, 2015), perceptions of employability (De Vos & Soens, 2008) and so on. Each protean careerist has their own definition and authentic pictures of succession they want to achieve (Hall, 2002). From that, protean careerists usually have proactive work behavior (Hermann et al., 2015; Gulyani & Bhatnagar, 2017), orient to goals of learning development (Briscoe & Hall, 2006; Lin, 2015) to reach their targets and goals in the career path.

Intention to stay

Intention represents a psychological predictor of the actual behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), and employee’s intention to leave or stay plays an important role of turnover propensity (Mueller & Price, 1990; Mueller, Boyer, Price, & Iverson, 1994; Tett & Meyer, 1993). In the norm of intention, the “intention to stay” and “intention to leave” are to sides of the same coin (Mueller et al., 1994; Nanncarrow, Bradbury, Pit, & Ariss, 2014).

Intention to stay represents to the extent to which employees plan to prolong their current membership with an employer (Kim et al., 1996) while intention to leave refers to individuals’ propability to move out their current organization (Vandenberg & Nelson, 1999).

In other words, intention to stay shows the employees’ determined plan to keep their role the organization (Mueller & Price, 1990, as cited in Kim et al., 1996).

In the research of Mueller and Price (1990), the scholars provided a cassual model to investigate intention to stay. In the model, there were three sets of variables associated with intention to stay including individual variables, environmental variables and structural variables. Individual variables refer to the characteristic of the employees (Mueller & Price, 1990, as cited in Kim et al., 1996). In detail, characteristic of an employee could be represented by his or her positive or negative affectivity which is a dispositional tendency to experience pleasant or unpleasant emotional state (Kim et al., 1996) while facing a situation, or be explained as employee’s job motivation – the willingness an employee dedicate to their job, or even the expectation that is beliefs about “the nature employment corresponds to the facts of employment” (Kim et al., 1996, p.951). The second set of variables related to intention to stay is environmental variables which are features outside of the organization such as kinship responsibility and external-labor-market opportunities. The final variables which named structural variables are some of conditions of work inside the organization (Mueller & Price, 1990, as cited in Kim et al., 1996). The structural variables can be clarified by autonomy, professional growth, organizational support, and so on.

For those variables exclude the external-labor-market opportunities, the higher positive side an employee gets, the higher intention to stay an employee has (Kim et al., 1996). In this perspective, an employee has an intention to stay or append themselves to organization when they perceive themselves as a part of an organization, and see the opportunities for their career development within organization.

Protean Career Orientation and Intention to Stay

In the research of career mobility known as physically crossing organizational boundary, it was found that self-direction in career management, a dimension of the protean career orientation, did not essentially foresee the career mobility (Briscoe et al., 2006; De Vos et al., 2008) because it only shows an individual’s proactivity, adaptability (Hall & Moss, 1998;

Briscoe et al., 2006). The linkage between protean career orientation and intention to leave among business graduated alumni and the bus drivers in New Zealand was nonsignificant (Baruch, 2014). Harrington and Hall (2007) also proposed that an individual with high protean orientation would commit to stay within a single organization if their values fits with that organization. In sum, these current studies of protean career orientation provide potential direction to believe that protean career orientation is related with intention to stay.

Individuals who are actively responsible for their career management will achieve more success in the career path (De Vos et al., 2008). Protean career orientation people inherently proactively manage their career (Herrmann et al., 2015) and eagerly master their career skills (Briscoe et al., 2006), resulting in the success in the career journey. Prior supported the idea that protean career orientation has positively related with the subjective career success (Seibert et al., 2001; Baruch, 2014; De Vos & Soens, 2008). It means that the protean career orientation brings employees to higher beliefs in their achievement of subjective succession. The belief of success achievement leads protean talents act positively, and does not leave the organization (Baruch et al., 2016).

Protean employees with self-directed career management are be able to deal with changes in the organization (Briscoe, Henagan, Burton, & Murphy, 2012) and be greater at self-awareness (Verbruggen & Sels, 2008). In the turnover intention research, Noe and his colleague (2003) denoted that employees have tendency to psychologically deattach themselves from the organization if they are not able to cope with the changed situation or changed the situation. It can broadly understood that the employees are comfortable and attach themsleves with the organization in case they cNoan manage the changes happening. Thus, the researcher expected that protean career orientation talents with their self-direction in career management have the adaptatibity to handle changes, which remains them to stay in the organization.

De Vos, Dewettinck, and Buyens (2008) stated that individual career management is related in internal career moves. The individual career management is similar to self-directed character of protean career orientation as they all refer to individuals’ self-management of their own career. The scholars argued that when people have self-management of their career, they satisfy more in their career progression and favor with moving within an organization. In other words, employees with self-direction of career management has tendency to move within an organization nonvertically, and stay in the organization.

Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory proposed that the intention to act is reflected by the motivation. The motivation is divided into intrinsic one and extrinsic one.

Intrinsic motivation illustriates the “inherent tendency to extent and exercise one’s capacities, to explore, and to learn” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70) while extrinsic motivation is the

“performance of an activity in order to attain some separable outcome” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 71). From intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, an employee displays the different forms of regulation. Employees with extrinsic motivation is associated with controlled regulation (e.g. external regulation, introjection) while intrinsic motivation is related with autonomous regulation (e.g. integration, identification). The intrinsic values motivate the employees to be earger to gain personal goals and experess one’s values (Meyer, Becker, &

Vandenberghe, 2004). With the intrinsic values, an employee seeks for the fullfilment and reaches the highest level of accomplishment. Building an integrative model between organizational committment and self-determination, Meyer et al. (2004) asserted that an individual with committed behavior “experience more autonomous forms of regualtion”

because they are concerned about “advancements, growth and accomplishment” (p.996) in the organization. In other words, employees’ intrinsic motivation reflects the intention to commit to the organization. Furthermore, organizational commitment concept is overlapped with intention to stay (Robbins & Judge, 2013) because both focus on the employees’ willingness

to be bound to the organization. It proposes that employees’ intrinsic motivation is more likely to be associated with the intention to stay.

Other research of intrinsic motivation ascertained that there was a significant relationship between intrinsic motivation and positive behavioral outcomes since people who were motivated intrinsically to work were more enjoyable and interesting in the work itself (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Sheldon and Elliot (1999) suggested that an employees who have intrinsic motivation are more likely to attach the goals and experience longitudinal well-being, which leads them to be more willing to keep their current status in the organization.

Organizational behavior research evokes that employees work in the organization with intrinsic reasons highly satisfy their work, perform better and experience to fit the organization stronger (Bono & Judge, 2003). Across culture, employees conquering the goals due to the intrinsic values prefer attaining to the goals, be more enjoyable in the process of achieving the goals and be happy even they cannot achieve the goals (Sheldon et al., 2004). The reason behind those psychological state of happiness is that the process of pursuing the goals itself is enjoyable, not the goals themselves. It is clearly stated that employees who started working with intrinsic values are more probable to be more motivated by their work and intend to stay longer with their employers (Van den Broeck, Ferris, Chang, & Rosen, 2016)

Similarly, protean careerists are proposed to have a greater experience in work, be happier with their current organization as they are motivated by their intrinsic value.

Consequently, protean career orientation is expected to be positively related with intention to stay. This study proposes the first hypothesis as bellowed:

Hypothesis 1: Protean career orientation is positively associated with intention to stay

Perceived Organizational Learning Culture

The term “organizational learning” was firstly presented by Argyris and Schön (1978), but only became popular a decade later through Senge’s published book mentioned about learning organization named “The fifth disciplines: the art and practice of learning organization” (Segen, 1990). Learning organization was described as “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (Segen, 1990). In this perspective, learning organization is where employees are supported for the learning to increase the capability to adapt and change.

Since the book published, the concept of ‘learning organization’ and ‘organizational learning’ have been paid attention in the academic field (Yang, Watkins, & Marsick, 2004;

Rebelo & Gomes, 2008). These two term has been used interchangable because both of these two terms commonly focus on the importance of employees’ learning within the organization (Örtenblad, 2001); however, some other scholars argued these two terms were different concept (Tsang, 1997; Örtenblad, 2001; Swanson, Holton, & Holton, 2001; Yang et al., 2004) clarified the differences between organizatioanl learning and learning organization. From his point of view, the former is to describe the learning activities which are conducted in a single organization, meanwhile the latter is a specific form of an organization where provides resources and supports their employees to learn. Stated broadly, a learning organization is the environment where organizational learning happens. To explain these terms more clearly, Örtenblad (2001) added another view about this distinction based on where the knowledge within the organization is located and who learns, and argued that organizational learning concentrates on individual learning and the knowledge is belonging to individual learners, whereas in the learning organization, all levels of the organization consisting of individual,

team and organization take responsibility and benefit to learn. Thereby, the knowledge in learning organization stays in the organization itself. Yang, Watkins, and Marsick (2004) creating a construct of the learning organization also distinguished the difference between organizational learning and learning organization. Meanwhile learning organization covers all levels of learn in the organization (individual, team and organization), and is reflected by continuous learning with adaptive characteristics; the organizational learning refers to collect learning experience from each individual in their skill development in the organization.

Organizational learning culture has been developed according to the concept of learning organization (Marsick & Watkins, 2003) which emphasizes the cultural viewpoint to measure the organizational learning activities (Yang, 2003). Learning culture refers to “a concept that reflects organizational behavior from the perspective of learning and development” (Yang, 2003, p.152). In other words, organizational learning culture is a type of the organization which promotes the role of learning in the working environment (Pantouvakis & Bouranta, 2013).

In the research of organizational environment (e.g. organizational climate, organizational culture) and learning development, Watkins and Marsick (2003) denoted that top management and key employees are pioneers to create the organizational learning culture as they learn from their experience, support and inspire others to learn. An organizational culture endeavoring to support learning can bring to better performance both for employees and organization itself. In detail, supporting employees acquire information, share the knowledge and working experience, the organization itself also can gain better outcomes as employees with their continuous learning increase their capability to resolve problems, be more creative (Bates & Khasawneh, 2005).

To demonstrate the value of the organizational learning culture, Marsick and Watkin (1997, 2003) developed a model of learning organization with seven characteristics in three levels: individual, team or group and organization. The individual level is reflected by

continuous learning opportunities and promoting inquiry and dialogue. Creating continuous learning opportunities postulates the attachment between learning and working, in which employees gain the continuous education and growth from opportunities provided via the job.

Secondly, promoting inquiry and dialogue shows “people gain productive reasoning skills to experess their views and the capacity to listen and inquire into the views of others; the culture is changed to support questioning, feedback and experimentation” (Marsick & Watkins, 2003, p.139). Encouraging collaboration and team learning is the third characteristic of organizational learning culture belonging to the team or group level. It refers to the work designed to gain the different views of team members, consequently fostering the teams working and learning together. For organizational level, there are four dimensions including empowerment, embedded system, environment connection and providing leadership for learning. The empowerment allows employees to establish, possess and implement the organization’s vision. Specifically, employees’ responsibilities are related closely to decision making so that employees are motivated to gain knowledge regarding their work. Embedded system refers to the technological system which supports the employees to share their working knowledge, experience, and all employees have permission to access the information for their learning. The sixth dimension is the environment connection. The employees are supported to understand the result of their work impact on the whole of the organization thus they can understand deeply their working environment and access the information to modify their work.

Finally, leaders support employees to learn and learn themselves for the growth of business.

This model of Watkins and Marsick (1997, 2003) has been applied in many empirical studies about the effects of learning culture on organizational performance, behaviors including organizational innovation (Bates & Khasawneh, 2005), organizational commitment (Joo &

Shim, 2010), job satisfaction (Emami, Moradi, Idrus, & Almutairi, 2012), organizational citizenship behavior (Islam, Khan, & Bukhari, 2016). Watkins and Marsick’s model (2003) is

used in many studies regarding organizational learning culture as it draws the construct of learning organization from the cultural standpoint explicitly and broadly, and it offers an effective measurement of organizational learning culture (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004). This model is also the only concept which comprehends almost all perspective of learning organization research (Örtenblad, 2002). Therefore, this study uses this framework to capture the organizational learning culture. In addition, this research extends the organizational learning culture in the term of perceived organizational learning culture, which represents the perceptions of employees about their learning organization, the place supports them to pursue their learning and development. The study concentrates to employees’ perceptions as it influences employees’ motivation and decision making.

The Moderation Effect of Perceived Organizational Learning Culture

In the organizational environment, a well-known determinant model to explain the relationship between an employee and employer is social exchange theory. Social exchange theory defined a mutual relationship between employees and employers (Cropanzano &

Mitchell, 2005). More speciffically, an employee enrolls to an organization, he or she will take the examination of his/her pros and cons in the interaction with the employee-employer relationship. Such that, employees beahave whether positive attitudes (e.g. organizational commitment, intention to stay, organization citizenship behavior) or negative attitudes (e.g.

absentee, counterproductive behavior) depending on how they perceive the interactions from the organization. A positive exchange over time leads to a reciprocal and rewarding employement relationship; otherwise, negative outcomes happen when the exchange relationship is not mutual (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In a general perspective, social exchange theory describes how the provision of valued resources from organization brings

在文檔中 Investigate the Moderating Effect of Perceived Organizational Learning Culture on The Relationship between Protean Career Orientation and Intention to Stay among Millennial Workers in Vietnam (頁 19-32)