دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 3980
عنوان فارسی مقاله

نگرش های حرفه ای بدون مرز و گوناگون و تعهد سازمانی : اثرات درک شده حمایت سرپرست

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
3980 2012 9 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید 5370 کلمه
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
Protean and boundaryless career attitudes and organizational commitment: The effects of perceived supervisor support
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 80, Issue 3, June 2012, Pages 638–646

کلمات کلیدی
حرفه گوناگون - حرفه بدون مرز - تعهد سازمانی - حمایت سرپرست - زمینه غیر غربی -
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله نگرش های حرفه ای بدون مرز و گوناگون و تعهد سازمانی : اثرات درک شده حمایت سرپرست

چکیده انگلیسی

Despite the traditional sentiment that protean and boundaryless career attitudes indicate a decline in organizational commitment, little empirical evidence is available. The present study examined the relation of protean and boundaryless career attitudes to organizational commitment and whether the perceived supervisor support moderated these relationships. The results based on data from 380 employees demonstrate that organizational mobility preference is negatively related to all three dimensions of organizational commitment. Self-directed career management is positively related to affective and normative commitment and negatively related to continuance commitment, while values-driven career orientation is negatively related to normative commitment. Moreover, there is no significant evidence provided for a moderating effect of perceived supervisor support on the relationships between protean and boundaryless career attitudes and organizational commitment. Perceived supervisor support has only a main effect on affective and normative commitment.

مقدمه انگلیسی

There has been a significant change in the nature of careers over the last few decades (Sullivan and Baruch, 2009 and Sullivan et al., 1998). Situated within the realm of changing working environments, protean and boundaryless careers have emerged as the “symbols of the new career” (Briscoe & Hall, 2006, p. 5). Despite their recent popularity in the careers literature, several authors argue that these career models need to be examined empirically (Briscoe et al., 2006 and Pringle and Mallon, 2003). Moreover, both the protean and boundaryless career models have been developed in the United States (Briscoe et al., 2006) and tested there as well as in Western Europe (De Vos and Soens, 2008, Enache et al., 2009, Gasteiger and Briscoe, 2007 and Segers et al., 2008). The current study strives to move theory forward on protean and boundaryless careers by examining the relationships between protean and boundaryless career attitudes and organizational commitment. Additionally, the study takes place in Turkey, a non-Western context that allows us to expand our understanding of the global reach of these important theories. Within the careers literature, there has been a traditional sentiment that protean and boundaryless career attitudes indicate a decline in organizational commitment (Sturges et al., 2000 and Sullivan, 1999). Without being tested empirically, it is still ambiguous whether employees with protean and boundaryless career attitudes are less committed to their organizations (Zaleska & Menezes, 2009). Consequently, this study addresses the research gap in the careers literature by examining the relation of protean and boundaryless career attitudes to organizational commitment. While not the primary focus of the research, the Turkish context is an important moderating influence upon the studied phenomena. Turkish employees have been experiencing more transitions and insecure employment during their working lives and have traditional career paths only within the public sector or large organizations. In line with these developments, it can be said that career boundaries are shifting in Turkey.

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی

The validity of the constructs of interest was tested using factor analysis. 14 items of the protean career attitudes scale and 13 items of boundaryless career attitudes scale were factor analyzed using principal axis factoring and direct oblimen rotation. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to examine the factor structures of the protean and boundaryless career attitudes scales and select the items with high factor loadings. (KMO = .85 for the protean career attitudes scale, and KMO = .82 for the boundaryless career attitudes scale) indicated that the correlation matrixes were suitable for factor analysis. According to the results, three factors’ eigenvalues were greater than one for the protean career attitudes scale. When the solution was restricted to two factors, the items clearly loaded on two separate factors (self-directed career management and values-driven orientation), which explained 47.45% of total variance. According to the results, two factors’ eigenvalues were greater than one for the boundaryless career attitudes scale. The items clearly loaded on two separate factors (boundaryless mindset and organizational mobility preferences), which explained 50.79% of total variance. Consequently, the exploratory factor analyses demonstrate that the translated scales performed as expected and yielded satisfactory results.The hypothesized relationships were tested using correlations and hierarchical moderated regression analyses. Prior to analyses, seven outliers were removed from the study, their scores that ± 3 standard deviations from the mean (Hair et al., 1998). The theoretical assumptions underlying regression analysis were met. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of study variables are presented in Table 1.First, the correlations revealed that organizational mobility preference was negatively related to all three components of organizational commitment (affective, continuance, and normative). Boundaryless mindset did not demonstrate a significant relationship with affective and normative commitment as expected, but also not with continuance commitment contrary to expectations. Self-directed career management was positively related to affective commitment and negatively related to continuance commitment. Values-driven career orientation was negatively related to only normative commitment. To test the hypotheses, three hierarchical moderated regression analyses were carried out. Four steps specified for each dependent variable in the analyses (affective, continuance, and normative commitment). Gender, educational level, age, and organizational tenure were entered as control variables in the first step. The main effects of boundaryless and protean career attitudes were entered in the second step and the main effect of perceived supervisor support was entered in the third step. Finally in the fourth step, the interaction terms were entered. In line with Aiken and West (1991), independent and moderator variables were centered before creating the interaction term. The results of hierarchical moderated regression analyses are presented in Table 2.In the first hierarchical moderated regression analysis, affective commitment regressed on the protean and boundaryless career attitudes, using the moderator variable of perceived supervisor support. The results showed that gender, educational level, age, and organizational tenure as control variables did not contribute significantly to the prediction of affective commitment (ΔR² = .01, p > .05). When the protean and boundaryless career attitudes added in the second step, the model became significant (ΔR² = .21, p < .001) Boundaryless mindset and values-driven career orientation did not demonstrate statistically significant relationship with affective commitment as expected, although the significant positive relationship between self-directed career management and affective commitment is noteworthy (B = .17, p < .01). Organizational mobility preference, on the other hand, was negatively related to affective commitment (B = −.44, p < .001). In the second hierarchical moderated regression analysis where continuance commitment was predicted, gender, educational level, age, and organizational tenure as control variables contributed significantly to the prediction of continuance commitment (ΔR² = .09, p < .001). Educational level was negatively (B = −.12, p < .05) and organizational tenure was positively related to continuance commitment (B = .26, p < .001). According to the results, only organizational mobility preference (B = −.24, p < .001) and self-directed career management were negatively related to continuance commitment (B = −.14, p < .05). However, boundaryless mindset and values-driven career orientation were found to be non-significant. With regard to normative commitment, as indicated in the third hierarchical moderated regression analysis gender, educational level, age, and organizational tenure, as control variables did not contribute significantly to the prediction of normative commitment (ΔR² = .01, p > .05). When the protean and boundaryless career attitudes added in the second step, the model became significant (ΔR² = .22, p < .001). Boundaryless mindset was found to be non-significant. Contrary to expectations, self-directed career management and values-driven career orientation were significant predictors of normative commitment. Self-directed career management was positively (B = .14, p < .01) and values-driven career orientation was negatively related to normative commitment (B = −.16, p < .01). Organizational mobility preference was also negatively related to normative commitment (B = −.43 p < .001). Self-directed career management and values-driven career orientation were the only variables that were negatively related to continuance commitment. However, there were no significant evidence provided for a moderating effect of perceived supervisor support (ΔR² = .02, p > .05). As seen in Table 2, there were no significant evidence provided for a moderating effect of perceived supervisor support (ΔR² = .01, p > .05), (ΔR² = .01, p > .05), although perceived supervisor support yielded significant main effects on affective (B = .32, p < .001) and normative commitment (B = .32, p < .001).

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.