Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
The development and validation of a measure for protean career orientation Baruch, Y. (2014). The development and validation of a measure for protean career orientation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(19), 2702-2723. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2014.896389 Abstract Contemporary careers systems are characterized by a boundaryless career environment and dynamic labor markets. New career attitudes and orientations emerge, and their evaluation is challenging. This manuscript reports on two sets of studies that utilized nine various samples (N=2287) to construct and validate a measure of a prominent contemporary career orientation – the protean career. We tested the measure for its validation in the USA, Europe, Asia and Oceania. Evidence of strong face-, content-, construct-, and discriminant- validity was obtained. The design of the final scale of seven items provides future academic scholars, HR managers, and consultants, with a rigorous, practical and concise measure. Key words: protean career; boundaryless career; validation; quantitative evaluation 1 The current turbulent business environment is characterized by what is termed ‘boundaryless organizations’ (Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick & Kerr, 1995), in which new modes of employment relationships have emerged (Rousseau, 1995) and careers become boundaryless (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996). While some have criticized this view (Inkson, Ganesh, Roper & Gunz, 2012), academic scholars and practitioners consider the current business environment, hence, career landscape, to be dynamic and vibrant (Arthur, 2008; Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). Recent theoretical contributions to the career literature manifest what Arthur, Inkson and Pringle (1999) and Lips-Wiersma and Hall (2007) termed a ‘new career’, and are applied both at the national and global level (Cerdin & Pargneux, 2009). The ‘new career’ stands in sharp contrast to the traditional, stable and hierarchy-based career system which comprised the mainstream concept during the last century (Rosenbaum, 1979; Schein, 1978). While many organizational and societal systems still employ traditional career systems (Baruch 2006; Inkson, et al., 2012), ‘new careers’ characterizes growing segments of labour markets. Thus, it is important to conduct a study that will contribute to our ability to have a valid and reliable measure for such concepts. Academic scholars, as well as HR managers and consultants have a growing need to evaluate such new orientations in order to identify, develop and manage human talent. Careers and their management are part of any HRM system, thus of relevant to HRM scholars and practitioners. To conduct survey-based studies, there is a need to develop appropriate and rigorous measures for testing various constructs, including employees’ attitudes and orientations. Studying contemporary career concepts is hampered by the lack of quality measures for rigorous evaluation of constructs, pertaining to evolved career models and theories. There is a definite need to develop applicable measures for the novel phenomena associated with the ‘new career’. Such measures would allow us to study emerging types of employment relationships and career systems (Arthur, Hall & Lawrence, 1989; Sullivan & Baruch, 2009) and to test models that build on theoretical progress (O’Sullivan, 2002). The value of contributions to the academic community depends not merely on innovation, but also on its relevance and applicability – namely, whether or not the measure is valid. Thus, validation studies are of paramount importance for scholars and practitioners in the area of management and of industrial psychology 2 (Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood & Lambert, 2007; Plouffe & Grégoire, 2011) An example of good practice in validation studies, which we followed, is Kumar and Beyerlein’s (1991) scale development. Studies that target the ‘new career’ phenomena tend to be based on anecdotal evidence or to rely on qualitative data (e.g. Arthur et al., 1999; Crowley-Henry, 2007). While qualitative data is worthy on its own merit, it is better to be able to complement it with quantitative work. Translating conceptual and theoretical frameworks into a set of items that grasp its true meaning is challenging. Testing for evidence of reliability and validity of constructs is critical to both new and well accepted constructs (Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, 2000; Judge, Piccolo & Ilies, 2004). This paper tackles the need for a measure that will help to mitigate against scarcity of empirical studies in the area of new careers, and the challenges about testing new measures for emerging theories for evidence of reliability and validity. It is done by conducting nine separate studies, all of which employed a measure developed for the evaluation of the protean career orientation, alongside other variables, for which well established and validated measures exist. All the studies utilized questionnaires to collect data in different business and career environments, covering various sectors, cultures, global regions and personal characteristics. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a scale that captures the true nature of the protean career orientation in a concise and focused measure. Our goal was to produce a concise yet versatile measure that can be used to advance understanding of contemporary careers. The availability of this measure will therefore contribute not only to theoretical development, but particularly to research methods which are of direct relevance to the study of careers. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT The Protean Career One of the most innovative contributions capturing the changing nature of careers is the protean career (Hall, 1976, Briscoe & Hall, 2006), a conceptual framework that is complementary to the ‘boundaryless career’ (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996). The idea of protean career was offered by Hall as early as 1976, but 3 gained wider attention and recognition only in the late 1990s, when the conceptualization of the term ‘career’ was vastly transformed to better reflect emergent business and employment practices. From a handful of citations in the early 1990’s, to hundreds of citations in recent years, there is an accelerated interest in the concept and its application, both in western and in global contexts (Grimland, Vigoda-Gadot, & Baruch, 2012; Tams & Arthur, 2010). Definition of the construct Hall and Mirvis (1996) describe the protean career as a new career form or orientation where the individual rather than the organization takes on the responsibility for one’s own career and for transforming one’s own career path. The term protean was taken from the name of the Greek god Proteus, who could change shape at will. A further metaphorical clarification came from the use of the ‘career fingerprint’ metaphor (Hall & Mirvis, 1996) to describe the individual nature of protean career. It is described as a phenomenon that takes place outside structures and traditional boundaries of organizational hierarchies, professional progress or stable directions. The person takes on the role of being his or her own agent. His or her career and life success will be defined and formed by the individual. Hall posits: “The protean career is a process which the person, not the organization, is managing. It consists of the entire person’s varied experience in education, training, work in several organizations, changes in occupational field, etc. The protean person’s own personal career choices and search for self-fulfillment are the unifying or integrative elements in his or her life.” (Hall, 1976, p. 201) At the individual level, the protean career is a career orientation (sometimes labeled as attitude – see for example Briscoe & Finkelstein, 2008). In its essence, the protean career is the contract within oneself, rather than between oneself and the organization, leaving much of the career development to people’s initiation and proactivity (Seibert, Crant & Krainer, 1999; Strauss, Griffin, & Parker, 2012), and where selfmanagement of careers is paramount (Kossek, Roberts, Fisher & Demarr, 1998; Özbilgin, Küskü, & Erdoğmuş, 2005). This alters the relationship between individuals and organizations. Earlier, individuals were mostly led by the organization and employers tended to use a paternalistic approach, whereas nowadays the organization must relate to individuals’ needs and plans, especially in western Anglo-Saxon 4 environments. It should be borne in mind, though, that even when people hold a protean career orientation, certain organizational and contextual boundaries will still exist, with which they have to comply (e.g. LipsWiersma & Hall, 2007). Measurement of Protean Career Currently, studies that measure the construct or concept of the protean career in a systematic, scientific manner are scarce, though there is an increased interest in studying it (Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). Apart from the measure suggested in this paper, there is only one other existing measure for protean career. Briscoe, Hall and Frautschy DeMuth (2006) have developed a 14 items measure, and tested it mostly via student populations. Their findings suggest that the measure consists of two-dimensions, in contrast to the original presentation of the protean career as a single construct (Hall, 1976; Hall & Moss, 1998). Thus, their resulting two dimensional sub-constructs framework does not necessarily add clarity to the study of protean career. Further, subsequent research could not always confirm the proposed two-factorial structure of the measure because the values-driven scale emerged to be problematic in non-US samples (Chan et al., 2012). Uni- dimensionality, a basic assumption in measurement theory, is the degree to which the items represent a single underlying latent variable (Garver & Mentzer, 1999), and is a desired feature for newly developed measures for concepts that were not tested empirically via quantitative studies. Further, Briscoe et al.’s (2006) measure is not concise, due to its length and ambiguity of dual dimensionality, as well as to the limited nature of its scale validation test. On the positive end, many of the items in Briscoe et al. seem to be capturing the true nature of the protean orientation. With the inundation of employees with surveys, in particular in western societies (Lyness & Kropf, 2007; Rogelberg, Fisher, Maynard, Hakel & Horvath, 2001; Rogelberg & Stanton, 2007), survey design requires measures that are not only valid and reliable, but are also concise and practical. Developing newer, more refined measures is of high importance when the measure adds value to an existing one (Kaptein, 2008). The need for a concise measure of the construct of the protean career is clearly warranted. Nomological Network for the Protean Career Orientation 5 We followed the nomological network idea (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) to establish construct validity. To provide evidence it is needed to develop a nomological network for the measure that includes the theoretical framework for the construct, and present an empirical framework for actual measurement. Theoretically, a protean career orientation is distinct from a traditional career approach, which is characterized by a stable and upward-mobility orientation of career (Rosenbaum, 1979). Its definition and description suggest that a measure can be developed to capture its essence (Hall, 1976; Hall & Mirvis, 1996). It also varies in terms of the perception of the meaning of career success accordingly (Derr, 1986; Greenhaus et al. 2000). Traditional career success is typically measured by financial and hierarchical gains, whereas protean career orientation takes into account also, and particularly personal development and the ability to follow one’s own dreams as the most important career success factor (Hall & Chandler, 2005). With the exception of hybrid career type (Sullivan & Baruch, 2009), which cannot be tested this way, career success can be manifested in forms of both internal and external success (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005). People who can adapt to the current turbulent and dynamic labor markets should flourish if they hold career values that fit such environments (Arthur, Claman & Defillippi, 1995; Conway & Briner, 2005; Rousseau, 1996), in line with person-environment fit (Maynard, Joseph, & Maynard, 2006). The person-environment fit theory suggests that individuals holding protean career orientation will be more satisfied in protean and boundaryless environments whereas individuals holding traditional hierarchical attitudes will be more satisfied in traditional hierarchical environments. Exploring the prospect relationship between holding protean career orientation and other attitudes, we may consider several options for dealing with the analysis of the relationships. We expect that the relationships between our measure and other positive work related attitudes and constructs are positive. One can study the relationship as a ‘within-person’ hypothesis, i.e. if being protean is malleable rather than a trait. If this would be the case, then when the ‘within-person’ changes over time, so do attitudes and satisfaction. Another option is to explore the relationships as a ‘within-situation’ hypothesis, because some people are more “protean” than others within the same job/situation, in terms of career-self-management (Seibert et al., 6 1999). A ‘cross-situation’ hypothesis, where some jobs may allow for more ‘protean’ characteristics than others (e.g. professionals vs. blue collar), is another option. Lastly, the subject can be studied as a ‘crosslevel’ hypothesis, when some may be more protean when in some jobs vs. others, or some time points vs. others, whereas other people may be more immune to job type or time point. The question is why protean individuals would be expected to be more satisfied than others (such as people working in rigid organizations or those who hole traditional bureaucratic view of careers), and the answer is that current labor markets became more boundaryless (Hall, 2002), creating numerous prospects of work environments that are less traditional or stable, and more work environments that are dynamic. Across all these options, we expect the protean career, being a central construct relating to career aspirations and behaviors, to be associated with a variety of work attitudes and work related satisfaction measures (cf. Vinkenburg & Weber, 2012). Hypothesis 1: Protean career is positively related to positive personal work attitudes and work related satisfaction. The protean career is associated with career self-management (Baruch & Quick, 2007; Kossek et al., 1998; King, 2004; Sturges, Conway, & Liefooghe, 2010) and career proactivity (Seibert et al., 1999). Career proactivity is empirically related to career success (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). This leads either directly to performance, or indirectly to general self-efficacy, which is a strong antecedent of performance (Bandura, 1977; Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984). Bearing in mind the relevance of proactivity to career success (Seibert et al., 1999), this can also mean that people with a high protean career orientation would have a higher tendency to change their job or career (Shen & Hall, 2010). This is in line with the extant literature on intention to quit (see Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). We predict that in the current dynamic business environment, an individual would be more likely to gain a high level of general self-efficacy and performance when he or she ranges high on protean career orientation. A simplistic approach would suggest that as protean orientation is associated with positive work attitudes, and these are negatively associated with intention to quit, then protean orientation will be negatively associated with intention to quit. Yet, the idea of the protean careers would suggest that it will be positively related to 7 intentions to leave, due to the nature of contemporary labor markets, and the idea that people can change and look for better or more fit work environments (compared with people with traditional career orientation, that would tend to remain in single employer). Therefore, as implied from the nature of the protean career, employees would have a higher inclination to change jobs, or at least be open to career transitions (Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). Self motivation and self direction, which characterize the protean career orientation (Hall, 2002), work as strong internal motivators for work performance. In contrast, motivators offered by traditional systems, tend to focus on external related factors. As a result we hypothesized the following anticipated relationships: Hypothesis 2: Protean career is positively related to intention to quit, self efficacy and work performance. The concept of the protean career was developed in a western, Anglo-Saxon labor market environment, and as such was subjected to the typical set of initial assumptions about frame of mind of employees (such as level of individualization and expectations for personal and professional freedom in society) and considerations under which many management theories were developed. These assumptions do not necessarily apply to other cultures. In general, culture is expected to moderate relationships across a variety of constructs (Ajzen, 1989, p. 256; Erez & Earley, 1993; Nauta, Vianen, Heijden, Dam, & Willemsen, 2009), and attitudes are related to behaviors and practices, according to the theory of planned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). However, two factors point out that this would not be the case for the protean career construct. One factor is the convergence of management practices, including people management, across borders (Pugh & Hickson, 2002). There is certain evidence for convergence across cultures in implementing management practices, though with some exceptions (Carr & Pudelko, 2006; Sparrow Schuler & Jackson, 1994). The other factor illustrates that the concept was designed to be general and common, in order for it to fit across global labor markets. That’s why the empirical results are not anticipated to be moderated by diversity in cultural values. Hypothesis 3: The relationship between protean career and its antecedents, as well as its outcomes, will exist in a similar manner across cultures. 8 The argument posited by scholars offering new career concepts is that contemporary career attitudes stand in sharp contrast with the traditional views which were typical in the past (Arthur et al, 1989). Yet traditional careers are ripe, and different from protean (McDonald, Brown, & Bradley, 2005). The characteristics of protean careers (Hall, 2004) suggest that these are people with orientation that rejects or refuse to comply with the rigidity of traditional structures and look for alternative routes for progress and to reach inner feeling of career achievement (Hall & Chandler, 2005). While both systems, stable and traditional versus dynamic and protean, boundaryless co-exist (Baruch, 2006), they are different in the way people set themselves, for example, career targets. Hypothesis 4: The relationship between protean career and traditional career attitudes will be negative. METHOD Development of the measure The purpose of this article is to test one construct via several studies. The new measure was employed and tested in conjunction with several other work attitudes, including job satisfaction, career satisfaction, organizational commitment, as well as self-efficacy and performance. Following consultation with the originator of the concept (Douglas Tim Hall, personal communication), the protean career orientation items for this study were developed in conjunction with the nature and notion of the concept as depicted in the work of Hall and colleagues. We deliberately developed statements that explicate the concept of the protean career based on the works of Hall and colleagues. Face-validation evaluation of the items and the wordings were done in consultation with a team of five career scholars who were well versed in career theory and acquainted with the concept of the protean career. A set of items was presented to these scholars, asking them to indicate the extent to which each statement truly reflects the nature and notion of protean career orientation. Following their responses we deleted or amended wordings for items that were not clearly representing protean career orientation. In the first five studies presented and discussed below, a combination of set of items was utilized. Some of these included only a partial list, due to a space limitation within the questionnaire survey. In others we 9 utilized different versions of wordings in order to determine the feasibility of measuring the construct with a reduced number of items. Different items were introduced for checking whether or not reliability can be improved by using certain variations (cf. Kacmar & Carlson, 1997). The set was then condensed into a seven-item measure and was utilized in four additional studies. In the studies conducted in a non-native English speaking country the questionnaires were back-translated using Brislin’s (1970) method. In the next section we present the general characteristics and the relevant results of the nine different empirical studies, based on the positivistic, quantitative research method approach. All these studies employed a questionnaire survey as the research tool which was utilized for a quantitative evaluation of constructs. These include the protean career and other constructs which vary according to the specific frameworks and aims of each of these studies. Stage I - Five Studies Our studies were conducted consecutively. The first three were conducted with the major aim of testing the reliability of the measure, whereas the follow-up studies were conducted with two other aims. The first one was to test the validity of the construct, and the second to evaluate it across different sectors and cultures. The reliability was also re-evaluated in these follow-up studies, which used different populations and tested a wider range of constructs for a thorough examination of the validity of the measure, aiming to identify a concise and practical set of items tapping the protean career construct. To validate the measure we performed a factor analysis in conjunction with a variety of other constructs. For the first three studies, bearing in mind the pioneering stage of the construct development, we ran an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In the last two studies we ran a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to verify the distinctiveness of our measure. A brief summary of the methodology and results of these five studies is provided in the following section. See Table 1 for the specific sets of items used in each of the studies. ---------------------------------Insert Table 1 about Here 10 ---------------------------------Study 1 A mail survey was sent to graduate business alumni from a large university in southwestern USA, requesting that they complete a questionnaire regarding their program of study and their career and work related attitudes and orientations, in particular, the protean career. The questionnaires were sent to known addresses of 1098 alumni. Completed surveys were received from 318 graduates (221 with an MBA and 97 with other Master’s degrees), representing a 29% response rate. Gender wise, males formed 74% of the sample. Ethnic origin distribution was as follows: 77.5% Caucasian, 3% African American, 15.5% Asian, 3% Hispanic, 1% Native American. Participants’ average age was 36.8 years old (SD 7.1). Protean career was measured with five items, using a Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) (see Table 1). The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .71 and EFA indicated a clear distinction between the measure’s items and other variables’ sets of items. To evaluate construct validity and test discriminant validity, a correlation was calculated with a number of well-established variables (Bagozzi & Phillips, 1991; Westen & Rosenthal, 2003). These were job satisfaction, which was assessed by participants using a three item measure (reliability Cronbach’s alpha = .94); intention to quit – a four-item measure with coefficient alpha of .71, and a variable labeled “learning propensity”, expected to be linked to protean career, which comprised 2 items, and yielded a coefficient alpha of .68. Lastly we measured three distinct types of human capital: scholastic capital, social capital, and cultural capital. The coefficient alpha reliabilities for these three factors were .87, .82, and .85 respectively. The results of the study, as well as of the other following studies, are presented in Table 2. Study 2 Questionnaires were sent to former US Navy admirals, focusing on their transition from a career in the highly bureaucratic system of the armed forces, into a civilian career within a turbulent business environment. Responses of 334 out of 712 relevant questionnaires reflect a 47% response rate, which is 11 considered high for an executive level. Most (99%) were males and the vast majority (95%) were white. At the time of the survey, 179 (54%) were employed/at work (73 of which self-employed), 5 (1.5%) were unemployed, and 143 (44%) were fully retired. Those employed typically held executive positions in a variety of industrial sectors, with a large percentage (40%) in the defense industry. The major constructs were: career satisfaction; Labor market perception; Life satisfaction; Satisfaction with the Navy treatment of careers (Cook, Hepworth, Wall & Warr, 1981); traditional career; and feelings during the transition process. The protean career was measured using a seven-item set as two additional items were added to the initial five items for improving reliability (see Table 1). Using the same Likert scale, Cronbach’s alpha was .75. As in study 1, EFA indicated a clear distinction between the measure’s items and other variables’ sets of items. The questionnaire for this study focused on the participants’ current careers and the transition process from a career in the Navy into a civilian career. The major constructs (and their respective coefficient alphas) were: career satisfaction: 5 item measure (coefficient alpha .90); conventional career success: 3 item measure (coefficient alpha .70); Labor market perception: 3 item measure (coefficient alpha .75); Life satisfaction: 3 item measure (coefficient alpha .85); Satisfaction with the Navy treatment of careers: 4 item measure (coefficient alpha .79); and Negative feelings during the transition process (coefficient alpha .85). Study 3 A questionnaire was developed to study academic careers in the context of the changing psychological contract within academic environments. Out of 784 questionnaires sent to academics in six universities in the United Kingdom, 337 were returned, representing a 43% response rate. Overall, the majority of the sample was made up of white (67.3%), male (90.8%) academics, with an average age of 45.4 years (ranging from 30 to 67 years). They were working mainly in the social sciences rather than the natural sciences (73.9% and 26.1% respectively). Most of the sample came from a traditional research focused UK university sector (67.7%), as opposed to 32.3% from the teaching oriented universities. The other major constructs in the study were: career future perception; organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991); job satisfaction (Cook et al, 1981); and self evaluation of research performance. The other major 12 constructs in the study and their respective coefficient alphas were: career future perception: 4 item measure (coefficient alpha .88); organizational commitment: 5 item measure (coefficient alpha .76); job satisfaction: 5 item measure (coefficient alpha .77), and self evaluation of research performance (measured separately, not via the questionnaire, to avoid common method bias). The protean career was measured using a five-items’ set (see Table 1), reaching a coefficient alpha of .70 (two items that reduced the reliability were removed from the initial set of seven items). As in Studies 1&2, EFA indicated a clear distinction between the measure’s items and other variables’ sets of items. Study 4 A questionnaire was developed to study careers, organizational and occupational commitment, as well as identification issues. This study was conducted in 17 firms in Vietnam. The 502 participants represent a response rate of 50%. Gender distribution was balanced, with 52% males. The average age was 31.61 years (ranging from 20 to 60), consistent with the young age distribution of the labor force in Vietnam. Over half (56%) of the respondents have worked in South Vietnam, while the rest (44%) worked in the North. About 54% of the respondents worked in the industrial sector and 45% were employed in the service sector. The other major constructs and their respective coefficient alphas were: affective organizational identification (Mael & Ashforth, 1992), a coefficient alpha of .83; evaluative organizational identification, coefficient alpha of .82; cognitive organizational identification, coefficient alpha of .77; perceived organizational support (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison & Sowa, 1986), coefficient alpha of .91; traditional career approach, coefficient alpha of .80; affective organizational commitment, coefficient alpha of .81; continuance organizational commitment, coefficient alpha of .83; normative organizational commitment, coefficient alpha of .82; affective occupational commitment, coefficient alpha of .78; continuance occupational commitment, coefficient alpha of .86; normative occupational commitment, coefficient alpha of .84; turnover intention, coefficient alpha of .73; internal career success, coefficient alpha of .92; and external career success, with coefficient alpha of .86. Job performance was self-evaluated using a single item. Protean career was measured using the original eight items’ set, with Cronbach's alpha of .76. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with the data from this study. The results of CFA were in line 13 with the expectation of distinction between protean career and other career constructs – traditional career orientation, and also internal and external career success. The CFA results were: χ2 of 337.73 (p<.001); GFI of 0.93; RMSEA of 0.064; SRMR of 0.054, and CFI of 0.97. In addition, CFA revealed low factor loadings (below .5) for items 2, 4 and 5. After dropping these three items (in line with Hair. Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006), the coefficient alpha improved to 0.82. Study 5 A questionnaire was developed to study career success of bus drivers in New Zealand. Participants were 113 bus drivers in a major bus firm in New Zealand, to whom the survey was administrated by a research assistant. A 1-5 Likert scale generated Cronbach's of .75. Descriptive statistics was as follows: 79% males; average age 51.3; 69% are New Zealand born (the rest immigrants). Mean occupational and tenure at current employment as bus drivers were 9.24 and 6.25 years respectively. Other variables measured in this study included: organizational commitment, with coefficient alpha of .91; occupational identity, with coefficient alpha of .89; traditional career orientation, with coefficient alpha of .77; job satisfaction, with coefficient alpha of .85; and turnover intention, with coefficient alpha of 0.79. A CFA results were in line with the expectation of distinction across other career constructs – traditional career orientation, as well as internal and external career success. The CFA results were: χ 2 of 15.31; GFI of 0.96; RMSEA of 0.04; and CFI of 0.986. Stage II Based on the above five studies, we realized that some items are poorly worded, or tangential to the essence of the construct. We discuss the issue with career scholars and compared reliability scores if certain items were to be deleted. As a result, we selected a final set of seven items and conducted four additional studies with diverse populations, in line with earlier studies (Plouffe & Grégoire, 2011). In choosing the final set of items we opted for items that were consistently providing strong reliability in the first studies and benefitted from face validity. The results support the reliability of the measure, and validated it compared with further variables, as described below. The selected seven items are listed in the discussion section. Below we list the 14 four studies in which we utilized the recommended final set to a variety of populations. The correlations between the measure and other constructs for all these four studies are reported in Table 3. Stage II, Study 1: A questionnaire was developed to study values and career progress of employees in a UK organization within the service industry. Participants were 212 managers and professionals, who filled-in a web-based survey. Response rate varied across the participating departments, from 20% to 65%. Just over half (52%) were males, and age distribution was: 5% up to 29, 17% 30-39, 46% 40-49, and 32% age 50+. They were employed in a variety of professional and managerial roles within one organization. Other variables measured in this study included: organizational commitment, with coefficient alpha of .88; traditional career orientation, with coefficient alpha of .77; job satisfaction, with coefficient alpha of .77; and turnover intention, with coefficient alpha of 0.71. The correlations with other constructs were as follows: .23 (.01>p) with traditional career orientation; .24 (.01>p) with job satisfaction; .14 with organizational commitment; and .21 (.01>p) with performance (measured separately, not via the questionnaire, to avoid common method bias). Cronbach's alpha of the protean career measure was .74. Stage II, Study 2: A questionnaire was developed to study career attitudes of managers and employees and the impact of training at Hangzhou Fusheng Electric, a Chinese firm that employs over 1,500 employees. The 97 returned surveys represent a 79% response rate of the sample. To test impact of training, the participants were classified into two groups: the employees who took at least one training course (returned 67) and those who didn’t take any training course (returned 27). Gender was equally divided, managers were mostly between 30 and 50 years old, and employees were mostly in their 20s and 30s. The coefficient alphas for the variables measured were: Organization Commitment (.76), Job Satisfaction (.82), Performance (.69), and Intent to quit (.85). The protean career measure had a strong Cronbach's alpha of .84. Protean career orientation was highly associated with job satisfaction, performance and organizational commitment, but there was no significant correlation with intent to quit. Stage II, Study 3: To study career attitudes of UK managers and professional employees we recruited 65 participants through a snowball sampling method. Descriptive statistics was as follows: Gender was almost 15 equally distributed, with 51% males; average age was 46.8 (SD=17.2). They were occupied in a variety of business sectors. The protean career measure had a strong Cronbach's alpha of.81. The coefficient alphas for the other variables measured were: Organization Commitment (.91), Job Satisfaction (.81), traditional career (.92), and Intent to quit (.74). The protean career measure was significantly associated with intention to quit and with a number of voluntary career/job moves. Stage II, Study 4: Business management students at a leading French business school answered an on-line questionnaire. The responses from 422 students represent approximately 95% of the total number of students in the cohort. This high response rate was reached due to the fact that the process formed a part of class activity. Descriptive statistics: Gender was 40% males, a majority for females, as typical to these students; average age was very young, 20.3 (SD=4.01) in line with the stage of study for the students. They were studying in a variety of business courses, and were not yet assigned to their ‘major’ specialization. Other variables were traditional career orientation (Cronbach Alpha of .88), three cluster of skills the graduates anticipate having following their studies – general skills, analytical skills, and executive skills had good Cronbach Alphas (.73; .74; and .88 respectively); network activities; expected future salary; and anticipated future career type, using the proxy of choice of major (the specialization area) they will make. The results confirmed a strong reliability for the protean career measure (Cronbach Alpha of .74) and a traditional career orientation (Cronbach Alpha of .88). CFA analysis revealed a clear distinctiveness of the measure, with The CFA results were: χ2 of 513.09 (p<.001); RMSEA of 0.06 and CFI of .90, providing strong support for the model. We found differences across the career choices, manifesting the relevance of both traditional and protean career for career choice. Analysis In the analysis section, we will first focus on providing evidence of the reliability and validity of the measure. We will then proceed to testing the specific hypotheses. Evidence of reliability and validity 16 The results across all the studies indicate strong evidence of reliability for the protean career measure, in line with earlier recommendations by Nunnally (1978), of Cronbach’s alpha over the .70 threshold. Some of the items in Stage I were somewhat problematic, partially due to the exploratory nature of that stage and the need we felt to try several optional items. In particular, reversed items reduced coefficient alpha, a common occurrence in the process of a measure development (Chester, Schriesheim, Eisenbach, & Hill, 1991). The protean career measure was also evaluated for evidence of face, construct and discriminant validity. Face validity was generated via a choice of items reflecting the notion of the original concept of protean career. Personal correspondence with the initiator of the protean career concept (Professor Tim Douglas Hall) enabled the identification of a number of indicators to represent the concept. Further consultations with subject matter experts acquainted with the theory and practice of new career systems dynamics supported the face validity of the items. Both construct- and discriminant-validity were evaluated by assessing the level of the correlation between the measure and other well established, previously validated measures. To assess discriminant validity we utilized the following rule of thumb: “A set of variables presumed to measure different constructs shows discriminant validity if their intercorrelations are not too high. If rxy = .90, for example, then we can hardly say that variables X and Y measure different constructs” (Kline, 2005, p. 60). Others suggest an even lower threshold, arguing that a factor correlation that exceeds .80 or .85 is often used as a criterion to define poor discriminant validity (Brown, 2006, p. 131; Carlson et al., 2000, p, 263). Further, sample testing of single items from the measure showed that the protean items were loaded markedly higher on our proposed construct, compared to the loading with other constructs. For example, in study 4, stage II, none of the other items loaded higher than 0.30 on the protean career factor, and only in one case, one of the protean career items was loaded more than 0.30 on another measure (negatively related to ‘traditional career). Tables 2 and 3 present the correlations between the protean career and other constructs measured in the studies. --------------------------------------Insert Tables 2 & 3 about Here --------------------------------------17 Strong evidence of construct and discriminant validity is implied from these sets of correlations and from the higher loading of the items on the suggested construct compared to the loading with other constructs. On the one hand, across the studies, we found significant associations with career related variables (such as satisfaction, salary, competence, self-efficacy, and age), but not as high as to suggest a similarity (Hinkin, 1995; 1998). Sometimes it had a low positive correlation with traditional career approach (which values hierarchical position and job stability), supporting the claim for a construct validity (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Westen, & Rosenthal, 2003). On the other hand, these relationships were not extremely high, and the level of correlation indicates clear discriminant validity, as the correlations with other constructs satisfied both the thresholds of Kline (2005) and of Brown (2006). This set of correlations point out that the protean career measure is distinct from other constructs measured in the studies, indicating clear discriminant validity. Criterion related validity study: Hypotheses testing The analysis provided clear and strong support for four of the hypotheses. We expected that respondents will be able to distinguish among different career-related constructs, in particular, protean career, traditional career, and the respective forms of career success associated with each type of career. To test this distinctiveness, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted for the first three studies and a confirmatory factor analysis for the last two studies in stage I and studies one and four in stage II (the numbers in studies two and three in stage II were insufficient for running CFA). The protean career orientation was found to comprise a single factor, with consistent evidence of reliability as measured by Cronbach’s alpha. The results indicate that the constructs were clearly distinct from each other. Correlation sets across these variables manifest moderate levels of correlation between the protean career measure and a traditional career perception, career success and a career future perception. The results obtained across a variety of populations, indicate that the data fit very well for all the studies (Hair et al, 2006). In particular, it is interesting to note that a protean career orientation is not negatively related to a traditional career orientation, but is orthogonal to it, thus rejecting hypothesis four, and suggesting that moderation might account for the different results. The moderation might be due to type of organizations, sector, even organizational size (where in large organization people can be protean, proactive, and strive for progress 18 within the current rank). People can have varying levels of these career orientations (cf. Granrose & Baccili, 2006; Inkson et al. 2012; Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). The first hypothesis examined the possible relationship between protean career orientations and individual work attitudes and work-related satisfaction. Various work attitudes as well as work related satisfaction factors were evaluated across the five studies. Among the work attitudes, we examined organizational commitment, organizational identification, occupational commitment, stress, and learning propensity. Work related satisfaction factors included job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and career satisfaction. Similarly to the results relating to the distinctiveness of the concept, the correlation sets across these variables presented in Tables 2 and 3 suggest moderate levels of correlation between the protean career measure and these factors, demonstrating positive relations with organizational commitment, organizational identification, occupational commitment, and learning propensity; and negative relations with stress. The correlations with the satisfaction factors were all positive, at levels between .30 and .50, suggesting these constructs are related yet distinct, lending support for the suitability of the data across the five studies (Hair et al., 2006). The association between protean career and intention to quit was tested in three of the five studies in stage I and the first three in stage II, and was found to be negative only in Study 4 stage I .Correlations with self efficacy, work performance and salary were positive and significant in most cases (Studies 1, 3, 4 in stage I and 1 and 2 in stage II). Hypothesis 3 suggested that the relationship between protean career and its antecedents, as well as its outcomes, was held across cultures. This hypothesis was supported for most of the variables, when comparing studies 1 through 5 in stage I and 1 and 3 in stage II, conducted in the US and UK, with the last two studies conducted in Vietnam and in New Zealand, and the studies in stage II conducted in China and in France. In two cases, though, there were clear differences between the results for Vietnam and the UK/US results. Intention to quit was negatively associated with the protean career in Vietnam, compared with nonsignificant correlation in the US, in China, and in New Zealand, and positively associated with the traditional career perception, which was non-significant in the Western populations. These exceptions 19 indicate that cultural differences may moderate relationships. Hypothesis 3 gained partial support in Stage I and stronger support in Stage II. As the relationships with the various other constructs were not different – they were stronger in the study conducted in China, possibly due to common method bias. DISCUSSION The present research constructed and validated a concise scale of protean career orientation measure. We tested the measure for reliability and validity, and assessed the distinctiveness of the items in relation to a variety of constructs already validated in the literature. The series of studies reported in this paper have generated a new measure for the evaluation of protean career orientation, and examined its nature as a new construct within the field of career studies. The measure will be instrumental in studies on new careers, as indicated in contemporary career studies (Arthur, 2008; Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). In developing and validating a measure for the protean career orientation we add a tool that enables current surveys to employ measurement of contemporary construct. The measure was tested across cultures, nations, sectors, and professions. A caveat should be borne in mind, that there is a large number of potential reasons (individual, organizational and cultural) that may cause differences in work attitudes and orientations, and this study did not cover all of them. The measure was found to be uni-dimensional and with strong evidence of reliability. As such we recommend its use in surveys, both in surveys conducted by HR managers and consultants for practical purposes such as testing employees’ attitudes, and by academic scholars for conducting rigor quantitative empirical studies using questionnaires. Understanding employees’ career orientation could help realizing possible inclinations to go through changes, for example, opting for expatriation position (van der Heijden, van Engen, & Paauwe, 2009; Yan & Hall, 2005). Consultants or HR managers should be able to evaluate motives and mind-sets of individuals. Using several studies to test the appropriateness of alternative items is in line with past work of scale validation (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997). The results of the studies indicate a good level of reliability, in line with Nunnally’s recommendation (1978) i.e. over the 0.70 threshold. Further, comparing with Casper et al. 20 (2007), the tests conducted and reported here go beyond the norm reported in validation across the industrial organizational psychology and organizational behavior areas. Overall, we provide strong evidence to support the protean career scale as a valid, reliable, concise, and practical measure of the construct. It also offered insights regarding the relationships with other career related constructs. In particular, it is interesting to note that the association between the protean career orientation and the traditional career attitude were not necessarily opposing, in line with earlier observations (Hall, 2002; Lips-Wiersma & Hall, 2007). The finding may be explained by a moderation of different factors that cause the different results, and should be tested in future studies. These factors may be general, such as culture; organizational, such as industrial sector; and individual characteristics, such as various work attitudes. One should consider the meaning of being protean in different cultures. While a need for development and even spiritual progress is equally relevant in most cultures, the facet of self-management may be more relevant in individualistic societies, and long term plans can be relevant where the culture has a higher level of long-planning horizons (Hofstede, 1994). HR managers should be aware that holding protean orientation does not exclude people from simultaneously holding a traditional view on the relevance of a clear hierarchy system for their progress along the formal organizational levels. The results provided evidence for the validity of this scale by showing that this construct is distinct from other career related constructs such as a variety of work attitudes. Examining the construct of protean career against a variety of work related constructs is characterized by high reliability and well established validity. These studies covered a wide range of work environments, though most of them targeted professional and managerial employees. The findings lend strong support for the validity of the new measure. This will hopefully encourage scholars to employ the new validated measure in future academic investigations, in line with earlier examples of highly valued validation studies (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997; Lee & Ashforth, 1990; McFarlane, Shore & Tetrick, 1991). The new measure can also be employed in in-company surveys, typically conducted by HR managers and consultants. Strengths and weaknesses 21 Within the behavioral sciences no single measure may be considered perfect or optimal, and our measure is no exception. While these studies used participants from a variety of occupations across a number of cultures and locations, there is still the possibility that the construct exists only or mostly for managers, professionals, business graduates or people with a specific mindset (see Inkson et al. 2012 and Arthur, 2008 for critique). The last study in stage I, focusing on bus drivers, suggests that the measure is indeed generalizable to a wider population. Future studies on the protean career should cover a wider range of professions and cultures, countering this possible limitation. A further point to take into account is that hypothesis 2 pointed out that protean careerists could consider physical mobility, such as the intention to quit, as well as being open to transitions (i.e. psychological mobility). Also, a protean careerist may be more likely to engage in career crafting. While physical mobility was tested in this study, psychological mobility was not tested. Studying other forms of physical and that of psychological mobility should be considered as a direction for future research. Another limitation is the need to run longitudinal studies to evaluate the lasting impact of the protean career orientation. The limitations of this paper are countered by certain crucial strengths. Most notably, the studies reported here bridge a clear gap in the literature, taking a theory from the conceptualization stage to research application, as well as to practical surveying work of HR managers and consultants. Given recent emphasis on shorter and concise measures for employee surveys, the parsimonious scale tested here was proven to be a useful measure with strong evidence of reliability and validity. It means that this concise measure can be further employed in studies which utilize a quantitative, positivistic approach, and in attitudes surveys. With the growing interest in the changing nature of careers and labor markets, this measure is a significant addition to the arsenal of tools that scholars can use. It is a tool which would enable to capture the true original meaning of the protean career when studying the contemporary workforce across various sectors, industries and cultures. Research implications The implications of this newly developed measure for future research in the area of career studies are significant. Protean career theory can now be further developed and tested via quantitative studies, using a 22 concise and practical measure with strong evidence of reliability and validity. Scholars and managers can use this scale to assess and monitor employees’ protean career orientation, such as implications for job design (Hall & Las Heras, 2010) or for global management of expatriation (Cerdin & Pargneux, 2009). The measure is ‘user-friendly’, being neither unnecessarily complex nor overly simplistic. Space in questionnaires is becoming an important issue, as employees are increasingly inundated with questionnaires, and becoming reluctant to fill in the longer ones. Based on a Likert scale and with only seven items, the measure can be easily incorporated into conventional questionnaires’ design, typically used in the behavioral sciences to generate new knowledge. Using a short measure would also help in having shorter surveys, a factor that influences response rate in academic studies (see Dillman, 1978; Baruch & Holtom, 2008). Such a measure of protean career orientation could be useful also for career planning, in career counseling and in applying career practices (Greenhaus, Callanan, & Godshalk, 2009). It is possible that protean individuals might prefer other ways of being managed than those who are more traditional in their career approaches. They would prefer to be consulted rather than being told about their next career move. They would tend to take initiatives, and to be engaged with self-setting their training needs. Most importantly for employers, protean individuals might well need creative challenges in order to be retained in their employing organization. For these advantages, we recommend career counselors to include this measure added in their ‘tool-kit’. Theoretical implications Theoretically, the area of ‘new career’ (Arthur, 2008; Lips-Wiersma & Hall, 2007) is still in its early stages in terms of quantitative empirical studies (Inkson et al. 2012), but novel concepts should be tested using acceptable measures. Without the ability to asses such constructs, further developments in careers studies are limited. In light of the new conceptual developments which regularly occur in the area of careers studies, it is of crucial importance for the scholarly community to be able to test such concepts in a rigorous, academic manner. If this fails to take place, the study of career systems will suffer from high conceptual ambiguity that hinders further development (Arthur et al., 1989; Greenhaus, Callanan, & DiRenzo, 2007). Hall’s 23 conceptualization of the protean career has contributed greatly to the career studies literature (Arthur, 2008; Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). Our major contribution is having an academically sound, practical and concise measure for the construct that is at the cutting edge of career-theory evolution. Future studies focusing on careers will be able to use this construct to enrich and expand theory boundaries. It will do so by being used for rigor research methodology and by enabling rigor theoretical investigation, a crucial factor for the progress of knowledge on the area of careers. With the dynamic nature of contemporary careers (e.g. the debate on generational differences and the globalization of the workforce), this measure will be highly valuable. Practical implications Practitioners and the scholarly community employ multiple-item measures to evaluate various constructs, essential for the ability to conduct a sound and effective evaluation of the protean career orientation both for individuals, and at the aggregate level, for organizations too. The managerial implications of this study refer, first, to the academic management of research studies which aim to explore the ‘new career’ arena, and second, to those who run attitudes’ surveys. The most significant implication is that the suggested measure boasts clear evidence of strong reliability and validity. We recommend employing a seven-point Likert scale when utilizing this measure, unless the population is of a lower ability to make a detailed distinction across levels (e.g. less educated). The set we propose comprises of the items utilized in Stage II, as presented in table 1. Based on the studies that used fewer items, if there are space limitations within a questionnaire, it may be sufficient to use a subset of 6 items from the above list, depends on the type of the population (e.g. item 3 represent more of the perceived ‘employability’ which can be taken as an outcome rather part of protean career; also, for students, dropping the second item would make a good sense). It should be remembered that the protean career is a complex phenomenon. Studies that intend to specifically analyze the protean career as the focus of investigation may employ a wider set of items to test possible multidimensionality of the construct (Briscoe & Hall, 2003). Conversely, it would not make good theoretical and practical sense to try and evaluate protean career via a single item measure. While the use of single-item measures in the behavioral sciences should not be perceived as a 'fatal error' (Wanous, Reichers, 24 & Hudy, 1997), it would not be appropriate in this case. A single item measure can be useful in evaluating simple constructs such as ‘job satisfaction’ (Greenberg & Barling, 1999). Employing multiple items as suggested in this study makes good theoretical and practical sense. Our measure is concise, focused, practical, fits for conventional questionnaire survey designs, and can be translated to different languages and be applied in various cultures. In conclusion, this study suggests that the protean career is a distinct construct, related to but different from other career and work attitudes. Our study enables further investigation based on contemporary frameworks, as it offers a new measure for a major construct in career studies – the protean career. It will permit the rigorous exploration of the nature of the relationship between employees, their careers, and their employers, via the perspective of the ‘new career’ vision. The contribution to the career literature is made as new concepts should be evaluated in a rigor manner. The most cited contemporary career concepts are the boundaryless career (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; DeFillippi & Arthur, 1994) and the protean career (Hall, 1976; 200). While the boundaryless was recently criticized for lack of validity across sectors and cultures (Inkson et al., 2012), the protean career exists in many global labor markets (Altman & Baruch, 2012; Richardson & Mallon, 2007), and this study would enable its investigation, thus supporting prospects of future theoretical contributions to the career literature. 25 REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1989). Attitude structure and behavior. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler & A, G, Greenwald (Eds.) Attitude structure and function, pp. 241-274. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Altman Y. & Baruch Y. (2012). Global self-initiated corporate expatriate careers: a new era in international assignments? Personnel Review, 41, 233-255. Arthur, M. B. (2008). Examining contemporary careers: A call for interdisciplinary inquiry. Human Relations, 61, 163-186. Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Generating new directions in career theory, the case for a transdisciplinary approach. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall & B. S. Lawrence, (Eds.) Handbook of career theory (pp. 7-25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arthur, M. B., Inkson K., & Pringle, J. K. (1999). The new careers. London, Sage. Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. Eds. (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era. NY: Oxford University Press. Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. (1995). The Boundaryless Organization. San Francisco, Jossey- Bass. Bagozzi, R. P. & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421-58. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Baruch, Y. & Holtom, B. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61, 1139-1160. Baruch, Y., & Quick J. C. (2007). Understanding second careers: Lessons from a study of U.S. Navy admirals. Human Resource Management, 46, 471-491. Briscoe, J. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2009). The “new career” and organizational commitment: Do boundaryless and protean attitudes make a difference? Career Development International, 14, 242260. Briscoe, J. P. & Hall, D. T. (2003). Being and becoming protean, individual and experiential factors in adapting to the new career, Unpublished technical report. DeKalb, IL. Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (2006). The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers, combinations and implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 4-18. Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. & Frautschy DeMuth, R. L. (2006). Protean and boundaryless careers: An empirical exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 30-47. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press. 26 Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M. & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249-276. Carr, C., & Pudelko, M. (2006). Convergence of management practices in strategy, finance and HRM between the USA, Japan and Germany. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6, 75100. Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A Review of Research Methods in IO/OB Work-Family Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 28-43. Cerdin, J-L & Pargneux, M. L. (2009). Career and international assignment fit: Toward an integrative model of success. Human Resource Management, 48, 5-25. Chan, K. Y., Ho, M. H. R., Chernyshenko, O. S., Bedford, O., Uy, M. A., Gomulya, D., . . . Phan, W. M. J. (2012). Entrepreneurship, professionalism, leadership: A framework and measure for understanding boundaryless careers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(1), 73-88. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2012.05.001 Chester, A., Schriesheim, C. A., Eisenbach, R. J., & Hill, K. D. (1991). The effect of negation and polar opposite item reversals on questionnaire reliability and validity, an experimental investigation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(1), 67-78. Conway, N., & Briner, R.B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work. New York: Academic Press. Cronbach, L. & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests, Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281302. Crowley-Henry, M. (2007). The protean career, exemplified by first world foreign residents in western Europe? International Studies of Management and Organization, 37(3), 44-64. De Vos, A., & Soens, N. (2008). Protean attitude and career success: The mediating role of selfmanagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 449-456. Defillippi, R. J. & Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career, a competency-based perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 307-324. Derr, C. B. (1986). Five Definitions of Career Success, Implications for Relationships. The International Review of Applied Psychology, 35, 415-434. Dillman D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys, NY: J. Wiley & Sons. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. NY: Oxford Press. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Garver, M. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1999). Logistics research methods, employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity, Journal of Business Logistics, 20, 33-57. 27 Gist, M. E. & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183-211. Granrose, C. S., & Baccili, P. A. (2006). Do psychological contacts include boundaryless or protean careers? Career Development International, 11, 163-182. Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers, subordinates and supervisors: The role of person behaviors and perceived workplace factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 897-913. Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., & Godshalk V. M. (2009). Career Management 4th Ed. Forth Worth, The Dryden Press. Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., & DiRenzo, M. (2007). A boundaryless perspective on careers. In C. L. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover, Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-488. Grimland, S., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Baruch, Y. (2012). Career attitudes and success of managers: the impact of chance event, protean, and traditional careers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(6), 1074-1094. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson. R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc. Hall, D. T. (1976). Career in organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear. Hall, D. T. (2002). Careers in and out of the organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 1, 1-13. Hall, D. T., & Chandler, D. E. (2005). Psychological success: When the career is a calling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 2, 155-176. Hall, D. T. & Las Heras, M. (2010). Reintegrating job design and career theory: Creating not just good jobs but smart jobs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 448-462. Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. (1996). The new protean career, psychological success and the path with a heart, in Hall D. T. (Ed.) The Career is Dead – Long Live the Career (pp. 15-45), San Francisco: JosseyBass. Hall, D. T., & Moss, J. E. (1998). The new protean career contract: Helping organizations and employees adapt. Organizational Dynamics, 26, 3, 22-37. Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967-988. Hinkin, T.R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 1, 104-121. Hofstede, G. (1994). Management scientists are human. Management science, 40, 4-13. 28 Inkson, K., Ganesh, S., Roper, J., & Gunz, H. P. (2012). Boundaryless careers: Bringing back boundaries. Organization Studies. 33, 323-340. Judge, T. A., Piccolo R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36-51. Kacmar, K. M. & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23, 627-658. Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing a measure of unethical behavior in the workplace: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management, 34, 978-1008. King, Z. (2004). Career self-management: Its nature, causes and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 112-133. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). NY: Guilford Press. Kossek, E. E., Roberts, K., Fisher, S., & Demarr, B. (1998). Career self-management, A Quasi-experimental assessment of the effects of a training intervention. Personnel Psychology, 51, 935-962. Kumar, K., & Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 619-627. Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1990). On the meaning of Maslach's three dimensions of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 743-747. Lips-Wiersma, M., & Hall, D. T. (2007). Organizational career development is not dead, a case study on managing the new career during organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 771792. Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241-249. Lyness, K. S., & Kropf, M. B. (2007). Cultural values and potential nonresponse bias, a multilevel examination of cross-national differences in mail survey response rate. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 210-224. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123. Mainiero L. A., & Sullivan, S. E. (2006). The Opt-out revolt: Why people are leaving companies to create kaleidoscope careers. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black. Maynard, D. C., Joseph, T. A., & Maynard, A. M. (2006). Underemployment, job attitudes, and turnover intentions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 509-536. McDonald, P., Brown, K., & Bradley, L. (2005). Have traditional career paths given way to protean ones?: Evidence from senior managers in the Australian public sector. Career Development International, 10(2), 109-129. McFarlane, Shore, L., & Tetrick L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the survey of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637-645. 29 Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human resource management review, 1, 61-89. Nauta, A., Vianen, A., Heijden, B., Dam, K., & Willemsen, M. (2009). Understanding the factors that promote employability orientation: The impact of employability culture, career satisfaction, and role breadth self‐efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 233-251. Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367-408. Nunnally, J. O. (1978). Psychometric Theory. NY: McGraw-Hill. Özbilgin, M., Küskü, F., & Erdoğmuş, N. (2005). Explaining influences on career ‘choice’: the case of MBA students in comparative perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(11), 2000-2028. O’Sullivan, S. L. (2002). The protean approach to managing repatriation transitions. International Journal of Manpower, 23, 597-616. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). An examination of the psychometric properties and nomological validity of some revised and reduced substitutes for leadership scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 702-713. Plouffe, C. R. & Grégoire, A. (2011). Intraorganizational employee navigation and socially derived outcomes: Conceptualization, validation, and effects on overall performance. Personnel Psychology. 64, 693–738. Pugh, D. S. & Hickson, D. J. (1997). Organizational convergence. In Sorge, A. & Warner, M. (Eds.), The IEBM Handbook of organizational behaviour (pp 187-92). London: International Thomson Business Press. Richardson, J., & Mallon, M. (2005). Career interrupted? The case of the self-directed expatriate. Journal of World Business, 40, 409-420. Rogelberg, S. G., Fisher, G. G., Maynard, D. C., Hakel, M. D., & Horvath M. (2001). Attitudes toward surveys, development of a measure and its relationship to respondent behavior. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 3-25. Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Introduction, understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 195-209. Rosenbaum, J. E. 1979. Tournament mobility, career patterns in a corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 220-241. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations, Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Rousseau, D.M. (1996). Changing the deal while keeping the people. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 50-59. Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics, matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 30 Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Krainer, M. L. (1999). Proactive Personality and Career Success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416-427. Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel psychology, 54, 845-874. Shen, Y. & Hall, D. T. (2010). When expatriates explore other options: Retaining talent through greater job embeddedness and repatriation adjustment. Human Resource Management, 48, 793-816. Sparrow, P., Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1994). Convergence or divergence: human resource practices and policies for competitive advantage worldwide. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(2), 267-299. Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Parker, S. K. (2012). Future work selves: How salient hoped-for identities motivate proactive career behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 580-598. Sturges, J., Conway, N. & Liefooghe, A. (2010). Organizational support, individual attributes, and the practice of career self-management behavior. Group & Organization Management, 35, 108-141. Sullivan, S. E. & Baruch, Y. (2009). Advances in career theory and research: critical review and agenda for future exploration. Journal of Management, 35, 1452-1571. Tams, S., & Arthur, M. B. (2010). New directions for boundaryless careers: Agency and interdependence in a changing world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 629-646. van der Heijden, J. A., van Engen, M. L., & Paauwe, J. (2009). Expatriate career support: predicting expatriate turnover and performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(4), 831-845. Vinkenburg, C. J. & Weber, T. (2012). Managerial career patterns: A review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 592-607. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction, how good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247-252. Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Quantifying construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 608–618. Yan, A., & Hall, D. T. (2002). International assignments for career building: A model of agency relationships and psychological contracts. Academy of Management Review, 27, 373-391. 31 Table 1: Items used and reliability results for Stage I (marked in bold are those eventually used in Stage II) Items Study 1. For me, career success is how I am doing 1 2 * * * * 3 4 5 * * against my goals and values 2. I navigate my own career, mostly according to * * my plans () * 3. If I have to find a new job, it would be easy () * 4. I am in charge of my own career * * * * 5. I take responsibility for my own development 6. Freedom and autonomy are driving forces in * * * * * * my career * 7. For me, career success means having flexibility in my job 8. I consider a wide variety of possible career moves 9. Choosing between two career options, I’ll prefer * * * the one I haven’t tried yet 10. My focus is on enhancing my employability * rather than just the tasks in a job 11. For me, career success means… Having * opportunity to learn new skills 12. I often explore other work options, even when my * current job goes well 13. If my current work does not support my values, * I’ll try to change it 14. I make my career choices based primarily upon * financial considerations (R) Cronbach’s alpha .71 .75 .70 .82 .75 - this item represent ‘employability’, and thus can be dropped if a shorter item is looked for - this item does not fit for students’ populations 32 Table 2: Correlation between Protean Career and other Constructs, Stage I Items Job satisfaction 1 2 .29** 3 4 .07 Life Satisfaction .42** Career satisfaction .41** .34** Internal career success .25** External career success .12* Scholastic gains from MBA .18** Networking gains from MBA .14* Cultural gains from MBA .20** Learning propensity .48** Intention to quit Self efficacy .09 -.33** .02 .38** Performance (self evaluation, apart from .53** .26** study 3) Salary 5 .25** Satisfaction with the transition process .26** Stress level during the transition -.32** Exhaustion during the transition -.27** Unhappiness during the transition -.28** Creating something New .23** Family support during the transition .16** Friends support during the transition .22** Time to gain new job -.13* 33 Traditional Career attitude .09 Labor market perception .25** Working hours -.16** .40** .69** Career future perception .28** Organizational commitment (Affective) .32** (.45**) .36** Organizational commitment (Continuance) (.07) Organizational commitment (Normative) (.28**) Age -.23** -.10 Affective organisational identification .46** Evaluative organisational identification .47** Cognitive organisational identification .43** Perceived organisational support .28** Affective occupational commitment .57** .38** Continuance occupational commitment .10* Normative occupational commitment .34** * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 3: Correlation between Protean Career and other Constructs in Stage II Variables 1 2 34 3 4 Job satisfaction Organizational Commitment Traditional Career Attitude Intention to quit Performance – self evaluation Performance – organizational data Skills (in study 2, actual skills; in study 4, .24** .56** .05 .14 .42** -.18 .23** .00 -.14 .03 .06 .21 .50** .21** .04 .19 .15** anticipated scholastic gains from studies) .10* .20** Voluntary turnover .25** * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 35