نگرش گوناگون و موفقیت حرفه ای: نقش واسطه ای خودمدیریتی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|29589||2008||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||5227 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 73, Issue 3, December 2008, Pages 449–456
A protean career attitude is considered as an important determinant of career success in the contemporary career era. In this article we test a model in which we specify the relationships between protean career attitude, career self-management behaviors, career insight, and career success outcomes (career satisfaction and perceived employability). A survey was conducted among a sample of 289 employees. The results support the idea that a protean career attitude is a significant antecedent of career success and that this relationship is fully mediated by the development of career insight. The implications of these findings for understanding the process through which career attitude affects individuals’ career success are discussed.
Over the years there has been extensive writing on the changing career environment. While traditional careers tended to be defined in terms of advancement within a limited number of organizations, contemporary careers are viewed as boundaryless (Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005). They reflect a “new deal”, in which the psychological contract between employer and employee does no longer automatically include a promise of lifetime employment and steady career advancement (e.g. Arthur & Rousseau, 1996). This new deal implies that employees have to engage in a range of career self-management activities to create career options that allow them to realize their personal career goals and ensure their employability (Hall & Moss, 1998). A changing attitude of employees toward their career development and their own role within this is needed (Briscoe & Hall, 2006). The concept of “protean career attitude” offers a valid approach to study contemporary careers (Hall & Moss, 1998). A protean career attitude reflects the extent to which an individual manages his or her career in a proactive, self-directed way driven by personal values and evaluating career success based on subjective success criteria (Hall, 2002). Despite the fact that the protean career concept has received widespread attention in the career literature, empirical research is still in its early stages. It is assumed that a protean career attitude is associated with career success, but empirical evidence is scarce. In contrast, over the past decades a wide range of studies have addressed career competencies that are critical for career success in the new career era (e.g. Eby et al., 2003 and Kuijpers et al., 2006). While these studies underscore the importance of proactively managing one’s career, they could gain from a stronger embeddedness in the theoretical framework offered by the protean career literature. The conceptualization of the protean career as an attitude reflecting a feeling of personal agency suggests that this attitude will engage individuals in managing their own career. This, in turn, should increase their feelings of career success. By relating the protean career attitude to the development of career insight, career self-management behaviors and career success this study responds to the need for empirical research on the predictive validity of the protean career attitude for understanding practical results (Briscoe, Hall, & DeMuth, 2006).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics, alpha reliabilities, and intercorrelations between all variables included in the study. Overall, these correlations provide preliminary evidence for the model proposed. Protean career attitude related significantly to career insight, career self-management behaviors, career satisfaction and employability. Career insight and career self-management behaviors related significantly to career satisfaction and employability. Table 1. Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and alpha reliabilities of major variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Gender — — — 2 Education — — .20⁎⁎ — 3 Age — — −.12⁎ −.20 — 4 Protean career 3.75 .76 .04 −.13⁎ .04 .83 5 Self-management behavior 3.30 .79 .02 −.07 −.01 .55⁎⁎ .71 6 Career insight 3.64 .73 .15⁎⁎ −.10 .02 .55⁎⁎ .45⁎⁎ .87 7 Perceived employability 4.10 .71 −.01 −.07 −.01 .49⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎ .50⁎⁎ .91 8 Career satisfaction 3.47 .08 .08 .02 −.09 .24⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ .87 Note.N = 289. Alphas are on the diagonal. Gender is coded such that 0 = female and 1 = male ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table options Table 2 displays the fit statistics for the measurement model. Overall, the fit indices show that the hypothesized measurement model provided a good fit to the data, χ2 (44, N = 289) = 68.90, p > .05, TLI = .980, CFI = .987, RMSEA = .044, SRMR = .036). Following the recommendations of Kelloway (1996), we compared the hypothesized measurement model with two constrained nested models in which certain factors were set to load on a single factor. First, we created a one-factor model in which all of the hypothesized factors were set to load on a single underlying factor. Second, we created a two-factor model in which the protean career attitude, career self-management behaviors, and career insight constructs where set to load on a single factor, and the employability and career satisfaction constructs on a second factor. Finally, we compared the fit of the hypothesized measurement model with the less constrained independence model. In each case, the hypothesized measurement model fit the data better than any of the alternatives, both in terms of the fit statistics and when directly contrasted with a change in chi-square test. The standardized factor loadings for the indicators used in the measurement model were all higher than .70, ranging from .71 to .95. These results provide support for the validity of our measurement model. They support the scale validity reported by the original authors of the existing scales we adapted and they offer support for the newly developed perceived employability scale. Table 2. Model fit statistics of the measurement model χ2 df χ2/df Δχ2 TLI CFI RMSEA SRMR Hypothesized five-factor measurement model 68.90⁎⁎ 44 1.57 — .980 .987 .044 .036 Independence model 1961.46⁎⁎ 66 29.72 1892.56⁎⁎ — — .316 .400 One-factor measurement model 279.58⁎⁎ 51 5.48 210.68⁎⁎ .844 .879 .125 .118 Two-factor measurement model 270.22⁎⁎ 50 5.40 201.31⁎⁎ .847 .884 .124 .111 Note. N = 289. TLI, Tucker-Lewis index; CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residual. Dashes represent data that were not applicable. ⁎⁎ p < .01 Table options Given the acceptable fit of the measurement model, we tested our structural model (see Fig. 1). The fit statistics for the structural model are displayed in Table 3. Overall, the fit indices suggest a good fit of the hypothesized model to the data. Following Kelloway’s (1996) recommendations, we compared the hypothesized model against two theoretically plausible alternative models (see Table 3). First, we created a non-mediated model in which protean career attitude, career self-management behaviors and career insight were set to load directly on the two career success outcomes. As can be seen from Table 3, this model poorly fitted the data and had a significantly poorer fit than the hypothesized partial mediation model. This supports our proposition about the importance of mediating pathways. Second, we compared the full mediation model with a partially mediated model. Comparison of the χ2 statistics for both models shows that the inclusion of direct pathways from protean career attitude to career outcomes does not cause a significantly poorer fit than the hypothesized partial mediation model. However, the regression weights from protean career attitude on employability and career satisfaction were not significant in the partial mediation model. For this reason, and because the hypothesized full mediation model represents the data more parsimoniously, this model was retained as the final model. The final model provided a good fit to the data, χ2 (47, N = 289) = 78.26, p < .01, TLI = .966, CFI = .975, RMSEA = .048, SRMR = .047). Full-size image (29 K) Fig. 1. Final model. Figure options Table 3. Fit statistics of tested structural models χ2 df χ2/df Δχ2 TLI CFI RMSEA SRMR Partially mediated model 72.86⁎⁎ 45 1.62 — .968 .978 .046 .046 Fully mediated model 78.26⁎⁎ 47 1.67 4.50⁎⁎ .966 .975 .048 .047 Nonmediated model 393.65⁎⁎ 70 5.62 287.27⁎⁎ .780 .830 .127 .170 Note. N = 289. TLI, Tucker-Lewis index; CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residual. Dashes represent data that were not applicable. ⁎⁎ p < .01 Table options Fig. 1 shows the significant pathways for the final model. Providing support for Hypothesis 1 and 2, protean career attitude was positively associated with career insight (β = .87, p < .01) and with career self-management behaviors (β = .76, p < .01). Career insight was positively associated with perceived employability (β = .67, p < .01) and with career satisfaction (β = .60, p < .01), which supports Hypothesis 3a and 3b. We received no support for Hypothesis 4a or 4b. Contrary to our expectations, career self-management behaviors were not significantly related to perceived employability or career satisfaction. Together, the significant positive association between protean career attitude and career insight and the significant positive association between career insight and perceived employability and career satisfaction supports our hypothesis that career insight mediates the relationship between protean career attitude and career outcomes (Hypothesis 5a and 5b). Given the lack of a significant relationship between self-management behaviors and career outcomes, the mediational relationship addressed in Hypothesis 6a and 6b could not be confirmed.