Content uploaded by Raymond A. Noe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Raymond A. Noe on Feb 22, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
61
London’s
Career
Motivation
Theory:
An
Update
on
Measurement
and
Research
Manuel
London
State
University
of New
York
at
Stony
Brook
Raymond
A.
Noe
Michigan
State
University
Correspondence
concerning
this
article
should
be
addressed
to
Manuel
London,
PhD,
Harriman
Hall,
SUNY-Stony
Brook,
Stony
Brook,
NY
11794-3775.
E-mail
mlondon@fac.har. sunysb. edu
The
concept
of
career
motivation
initially
presented
by
London
(1983)
integrates
individual
differences
into
three
domains:
career
resilience,
career
insight,
and
career
identity.
This
serves
as
an
organizing
framework
in
which
to
understand
and
enhance
the
effects
of
situational
conditions
on
career
decisions
and
behavior.
This
article
summarizes
London’s
career
motivation
theory,
describes
assessment
center
and
paper-and-pencil
measures
of
the
career
motivation
domains,
presents
a
study
showing
the
convergent
validity
of
three
measures,
and
reviews
research
findings.
Suggestions
are
made
for
future
research
and
practice.
Since
London
(1983)
outlined
the
foundation
for
a
theory
of
career
motivation,
research
has
examined
the
content,
antecedents,
and
consequences
of
career
motivation.
The
theory
has
also
been
applied
to
the
design
of
career
development
programs,
often
in
changing
organizations.
The
purpose
of
this
article
is
to
describe
London’s
model,
examine
how
the
domains
of
career
motivation
have
been
measured,
present
the
results
of
a
convergent
validity
study
of
three
career
motivation
measures,
and
review
research
stimulated
by
the
model.
Background
The
variables
and
relationships
proposed
by
London’s
(1983)
model
are
depicted
in
Figure
1.
The
model
was
originally
developed
in
the
process
of
answering
a
research
question,
What
motivates
managers?
Specifically,
research
during
the
mid-to-late
1970s
showed
that
young
managers
were
not
as
motivated
to
attain
leadership
positions
as
those
of
a
generation
earlier
(Howard
&
Bray,
1981).
The
career
motivation
model
began
by
a
priori
organizing
relevant
needs,
interests,
and
personality
variables
into
a
set
of
a
priori
dimensions.
The
model
was
intended
to
be
an
integrative,
organizing
framework
for
existing
variables.
As
the
content
of
the
model
was
developed
62
and
refined,
processes
were
proposed
to
consider
how
individual
differences
that
comprise
career
motivation
were
associated
with
behaviors
and
influenced
by
situational
conditions.
The
relationships
among
the
situation
and
career
motivation
variables
proposed
in
the
model
and
tested
in
subsequent
research
helped
establish
guidelines
for
creating
an
environment
that
supports
and
encourages
career
motivation.
Figure
1.
London’s
model
of
career
motivation.
London
(1983,
1985;
London
&
Mone,
1987)
viewed
career
motivation
as
a
multidimensional
concept
organized
into
three
a
prior
domains:
career
resilience,
career
insight,
and
career
identity,
defined
as
follows:
(a)
Career
resilience
is
the
ability
to
adapt
to
changing
circumstances,
even
when
the
circumstances
are
discouraging
or
disruptive.
It
consists
of
such
variables
as
belief
in
oneself,
need
for
achievement,
and
willingness
to
take
risks.
(b)
Career
insight
is
the
ability
to
be
realistic
about
oneself
and
one’s
career
and
to
put
these
perceptions
to
use
in
establishing
goals.
It
consists
of
establishing
clear
career
goals
and
knowing
one’s
strengths
and
weaknesses.
(c)
Career
identity
is
the
extent
to
which
one
defines
oneself
by
work.
It
consists
of
job,
organizational,
and
professional
involvement
and
needs
for
advancement,
recognition,
and
a
leadership
role.
Career
identity
is
the
direction
of
motivation,
insight
is
the
energizing
or
arousal
component,
63
and
career
resilience
is
the
maintenance
or
persistence
component
(Noe,
Noe,
&
Bachhuber,
1990).
The
concepts
of
resilience,
insight,
and
identity
have
a
foundation
in
trait-factor
career
theories.
Resilience
is
conceptually
similar
to
Holland’s
(1985;
Holland,
Daiger,
&
Power,
1980)
notion
that
career
decisions
are
influenced
by
the
ability
to
face
barriers,
the
need
for
information
and
reassurance,
and
vocational
identity.
Also,
career
resilience
is
conceptually
similar
to
the
concepts
of
hardiness
(Kobasa,
Maddi,
&
Kahn,
1982),
self-
efficacy
(Bandura,
1977),
and
achievement
motivation
(McClelland,
1965).
The
concept
of
human
agency-being
assertive,
instrumental,
and
interpersonally
facile-is
also
similar
to
resilience
(cf.
Williams’s
[1992]
treatment
of
the
human
context
of
agency).
Career
maturity
is
another
similar
concept.
People
who
are
strong
in
career
maturity
make
career
decisions
in
a
way
that
demonstrates
involvement,
decisiveness,
independence,
task
orientation,
and
willingness
to
compromise
between
needs
and
reality
(Crites,
1978).
Resilience
is
also
similar
to
the
idea
of
flexibility
in
Dawis
and
Lofquist’s
(1984)
theory
of
work
adjustment.
Work
adjustment
depends
on
the
congruence
between
individual
abilities
and
the
requirements
of
the
job
and
the
congruence
between
individual
needs
and
reinforcers
in
the
environment.
People
who
are
strong
in
work
adjustment
are
characteristically
strong
in
perseverance,
flexibility,
and
reactiveness
(taking
action
to
overcome
barriers).
Career
insight
is
conceptually
similar
to
Super’s
vocational
self-concept
called
crystallization
(Super,
1957,
1963).
Career
identity
is
conceptually
similar
to
work
commitment
(Dubin
&
Champoux,
1975),
organizational
commitment
(Salancik,
1977),
and
organizational
citizenship
(Organ,
1988).
Also,
career
identity
is
similar
to
Blau’s
concept
of
career
commitment
(Blau,
1985,
1988,
1989;
Blau,
Paul,
&
St.
John,
1993;
see
also,
Colarelli
&
Bishop,
1990).
Hall’s
(1976,
1987)
model
of
career
identification
proposes
that
the
importance
of
career
to
an
individual
depends
on
awareness
of
one’s
inclinations
(career
insight)
and
being
successful
(which
enhances
self-
confidence,
a
part
of
career
resilience).
Farmer
and
Chung
(1995)
outlined
a
model
based
on
three
dimensions
of
motivation:
commitment,
mastery
motivation,
and
aspiration,
which
may
be
interpreted
as
paralleling
resilience,
insight,
and
identity,
respectively.
The
career
motivation
model
predicts
that
situational
conditions
influence
motivation.
For
this
reason,
the
model
can
be
categorized
as
an
exogenous
motivational
theory
(Katzell
&
Thompson,
1990).
According
to
the
model,
situational
characteristics
that
influence
career
resilience
include
positive
reinforcement
and
constructive
performance
feedback,
encouragement
of
autonomy,
organizational
change,
opportunities
for
individual
control
and
discretion
(e.g.,
chance
for
input
into
work
methods),
opportunities
to
demonstrate
achievement,
support
for
creativity,
demands
for
quality,
and
support
for
learning
and
skill
development.
Situational
characteristics
that
affect
career
insight
include
structure
for
goal
setting
(e.g.,
existence
of
career
alternatives,
procedures,
and
assistance
for
setting
career
goals),
path
goal
structure
(e.g.,
standard
career
paths
to
various
organization
levels
or
positions),
organizational
flexibility,
opportunity
for
change,
and
visibility
64
of
organizational
processes
(e.g.,
methods
for
appraisal
and
personnel
decisions
are
explicit,
observable,
and
veridical).
Situational
characteristics
that
influence
career
identity
include
encouragement
of
professionalism,
press
for
organizational
commitment
(e.g.,
value
of
inducements
such
as
salary
and
pension
for
good
performance
and
loyalty),
advancement
opportunities,
potential
for
recognition
(e.g.,
reward
programs),
leadership
opportunities,
and
potential
for
monetary
gain.
Also,
the
model
holds
that
prospective
and
retrospective
rationality
processes
help
us
understand
how
individual
characteristics,
situational
conditions,
and
their
interaction
affect
behaviors.
Prospective
rationality
predicts
that
the
situation
influences
the
career
motivation
domains,
which,
in
turn,
affect
career
decisions
and
behavior.
Retrospective
rationality
processes
argue
that
behaviors
influence
feelings
of
career
motivation
and
perceptions
of
the
situation.
London
(1985;
London
&
Mone,
1987)
suggested
that
resilience
variables
develop
from
reinforcement
contingencies
in
the
environment
as
one
is
growing
up.
As
such,
employees’
career
resilience
should
be
well
developed
by
early
adulthood,
although
it
may
be
strengthened
or
weakened
over
extended
periods
of
time.
Insight
and
identity
develop
through
information
processing.
As
such,
they
should
be
easier
to
affect
through
career
development
processes.
Over
time,
resilience
should
contribute
to
developing
accurate
insight,
which,
in
turn,
should
contribute
to
developing
a
career
identity
that
is
realistic
and
meaningful
to
the
individual.
Together,
an
individual’s
career
resilience,
insight,
and
identity
form
a
pattern
that
describes
the
individual’s
career
motivation.
London
and
Mone
(1987)
identified
different
patterns
of
career
development.
Examples
include:
(a)
people
who
start
their
careers
with
reasonably
strong
resilience
and
are
able
to
use
information
about
themselves
and
the
environment
to
establish
meaningful,
long-lasting
career
identities,
(b)
people
who
redirect
their
careers
because
of
the
barriers
they
face,
(c)
people
who
experience
failure
and
question
their
abilities
but
have
the
resilience
to
take
action
that
restores
belief
in
themselves,
and
(d)
people
who
become
mired
in
self-doubt,
yet
eventually
achieve
small
successes
and
establish
new,
realistic
goals.
Measurement
Assessment
centers
and
paper-and-pencil
questionnaires
have
been
used
to
measure
career
resilience,
insight,
and
identity.
These
are
described
as
follows.
The
Career
Motivation
Assessment
Center
London
and
Bray
(1984;
see
also
London,
1985)
developed
a
2-day
assessment
center
to
study
career
motivation.
The
components
included
a
personal
history
form,
a
2-hour
background
interview,
projectives
(Thematic
Apperception
Test;
Rotter
Incomplete
Sentences
Test),
measures
of
intellectual
abilities
(tests
of
quantitative
and
verbal
abilities),
personality
indexes
(e.g.,
Edwards
measure
of
15
personality
variables),
and
interest
inventories.
A
fact-finding
exercise
lasting
30
minutes
gave
the
participants
three
hypothetical
job
choices:
assistant
branch
manager
of
a
bank,
staff
65
member
in
the
new
services
development
department
of
the
bank,
or
assistant
product
manager
in
a
consumer
products
company.
The
participants
then
had
a
chance
to
question
a
resource
person
about
the
alternatives.
Another
exercise
gave
participants
six
cases
describing
life
or
career
decisions.
For each
situation,
the
participant
was
asked
what
advice
he
or
she
would
give
to
the
character
in
the
case.
A
career
and
life
expectations
measure
asked
the
participants
to
describe
their
future,
outline
their
ideal
business
day,
and
indicate
what
they
want
in
life.
A
career
projectives
test
presented
participants
with
six
pictures
focusing
on
career-related
topics.
All
the
test
scores
and
written
reports
of
responses
to
the
exercises
and
cases
were
reviewed
by
a
group
of
assessors
(several
clinical
psychologists,
industrial
organizational
psychologists,
and
managers)
during
an
integration
session.
After
hearing
the
reports
and
test
results
for
a
given
participant,
each
assessor
used
a
5-point
scale
to
rate
the
participant
on
the
career
motivation
dimensions.
The
assessors
discussed
any
dimension
on
which
they
disagreed
in
an
effort
to
reach
consensus
so
that
all
assessors
agreed
within
one
point
of
each
other.
Paper-and-Pencil
Instruments
The
career
motivation
assessment
center
provided
a
wealth
of
information
about
participants.
However,
the
expense
and
time
required
limited
its
feasibility
for
research
and
practice
(although
some
corporations
and
training
institutes
offer
&dquo;insight&dquo;
assessment
centers
for
managerial
development).
To
avoid
these
problems,
several
paper-and-pencil
measures
of
career
motivation
were
developed
independently.
London’s
(1993a)
17-item
instrument
focuses
on
feelings
and
attitudes.
Items
measuring
resilience
include the
ability
to
adapt
to
changing
circumstances,
willingness
to
take
risks,
welcoming
job
and
organizational
changes,
ability
to
handle
any
work
problem,
and
looking
forward
to
working
with
new
and
different
people.
Items
measuring
insight
include
having
clear
career
goals,
having
realistic
career
goals,
knowing
your
strengths,
knowing
your
weaknesses,
and
recognizing
what
you
can
do
well
and
cannot
do
well.
Identity
is
measured
by
items
such
as
feeling
involved
in
your
job,
feeling
proud
to
work
for
your
organization,
believing
that
your
success
depends
on
the
success
of
your
employer,
being
loyal
to
your
employer,
and
seeing
yourself
as a
professional
or
technical
expert.
Each
item
is
rated
on
a
5-point
scale
ranging
from
1
(low)
to
5
(high).
Ratings
from
183
employees
and
their
supervisors
(London,
1993a)
showed
high
interitem
reliability
(alphas
of
.80-.88)
and
moderate
correlations
between
the
different
dimensions
within
each
rater
group
(.43-.75
for
self-ratings,
.62-.69
for
supervisor
ratings).
There
was
evidence
of
higher
monotrait-multirater
correlations
(.36-.42)
compared
to
multitrait-multirater
correlations
(.20-.26).
A
second
sample
of
59
employees
and
their
supervisors,
with
data
collected
at
two
points
in
time
with
a
31/2
month
interval,
also
reported
by
London
(1993a),
showed
high
test-retest
reliability
and
construct
validity
(low
correlations
between
different
constructs).
Low
correlations
between
supervisor
and
self-ratings
of
the
same
dimension
suggested
that
employees
did
not
see
their
own
career
66
motivation
in
the
same
way
supervisors
saw
it.
The
median
test-retest
reliability
was
.52
(p
<
.01)
for
self-ratings
and
.54
(p
<
.01)
for
supervisor
ratings.
Whereas
London’s
(1993a)
items
tap
attitudes
and
feelings
related
to
work
and
career,
Noe
et
al.
(1990)
developed
a
27-item
measure
of
career
resilience,
insight,
and
identity
that
captures
self-reports
of
behaviors.
Items
measuring
career
resilience
include:
(a)
Have
you
made
suggestions
to
others
even
though
they
may
disagree?
(b)
Did
you
make
and
maintain
friendships
with
people
in
different
departments?
(c)
Did
you
design
better
ways
of
doing
your
work?
(d)
Have
you
outlined
ways
of
accomplishing
jobs
without
waiting
for
your
boss?
and
(e)
Did
you
take
the
time
to
do
the
best
possible
job
on
a
task?
Items
measuring
career
insight
include:
(a)
Did
you
have
clear
specific
career
goals?
and
(b)
Did
you
have
a
specific
plan
for
achieving
your
career
goal?
Career
identity
items
include:
(a)
Were
you
involved
in
professional
organizations
related
to
your
career
goal?
(b)
Did
you
take
courses
toward
a
job-related
degree?
(c)
Did
you
spend
your
free
time
on
activities
that
related
to
your
job?
and
(d)
Did
you
ask
coworkers
you
respect
for
feedback
on
your
performance?
Both
London
(1993a)
and
Noe
et
al.
(1990)
used
factor
analysis
to
verify
the
distinctness
of
the
resilience,
insight,
and
identity
dimensions.
Blau’s
(1985,
1988,
1989)
7-item
measure
of
career
commitment
contains
items
that
are
similar
to
those
that
measure
career
identity,
such
as
&dquo;I
definitely
want
a
career
for
myself
in
the
profession&dquo;
and
&dquo;If
I
could
do
it
all
over
again,
I
would
not
choose
to
work
in
the
profession&dquo;
(reverse
scored),
with
ratings
made
on
5-point
scales
from
1
(strongly
disagree)
to
5
(strongly
agree).
Carson
and
Bedeian
(1994)
expanded
this
view
further
to
conceptualize
career
commitment
as
another
term
for
multidimensional
career
motivation.
As
such,
they
developed
a
12-item
career
commitment
instrument
that
measures
career
resilience,
identity,
and
career
planning
(which
correspond
to
London’s
concept
of
insight).
Their
measure
avoids
the
vagueness
of
the
word
career
by
referring
instead
to
line
of
work/career
field.
Career
identity
is
measured
by
the
following
items:
(a)
My
line
of
work/career
field
is
an
important
part
of
who
I
am.
(b)
This
line
of
work/career
field
has
a
great
deal
of
personal
meaning
to
me.
(c)
I
do
not
feel
&dquo;emotionally
attached&dquo;
to
this
line
of
work/career
field.
and
(d)
I
strongly
identify
with
my
chosen
line
of
work/career
field.
Career
planning
is
measured
by
the
items:
(a)
I
do
not
have
a
strategy
for
achieving
my
goals
in
this
line
of
work/career
field.
(b)
I
have
created
a
plan
for
my
development
in
this
line
of
work/career
field.
(c)
I
do
not
identify
specific
goals
for
my
development
in
this
line
of
work/career
field.
and
(d)
I
do
not
often
think
about
my
personal
development
in
this
line
of
work/career
field.
Finally,
career
resilience
is
measured
by
the
items:
(a)
The
costs
associated
with
my
line
of
work/career
field
sometimes
seem
too
great.
(b)
Given
the
problems
I
encounter
in
this line
of
work/career
field,
I
sometimes
wonder
if
I
get
enough
out
of
it.
(c)
Given
the
problems
in
this
line
of
work/career
field,
I
sometimes
wonder
if
the
personal
burden
is
worth
it.
and
(d)
The
discomforts
associated
with
my
line
of
work/career
field
sometimes
seem
too
great.
67
In
a
series
of
scale
development
and
factor
analytic
studies
using
diverse
samples,
Carson
and
Bedeian
(1994)
demonstrated
convergent
and
discriminant
validity
for
the
three
scales
comprising
career
commitment.
The
three
scales
were
reasonably
independent
(intercorrelations
of
.17-.44)
and
reliable
(alphas
of
.79-.85).
All
three
scales
were
significantly
related
to
Blau’s
(1985)
measure
of
career
commitment
(correlations
of
.70-.73).
Nevertheless,
the
career
motivation
components
were
differentially
related
to
other
variables.
For
instance,
in
their
field
sample
of
476
employees
from
diverse
professional
groups,
Carson
and
Bedeian
found
that
age
was
positively
related
to
career
resilience
(r
=
.14,
p
<
.05)
and
negatively
related
to
career
planning
(r
= -.09,
p
<
.05).
But
career
identity
was
not
significantly
related
to
age
(r
= .03).
To
examine
their
measure’s
convergent
validity,
Carson
and
Bedeian
(1994)
studied
the
relationships
among
the
career
resilience,
identity,
and
planning
scales,
an
8-item
measure
of
affective
organizational
commitment
(Meyer
&
Allen,
1984),
and
a
9-item
measure
of
job
involvement
(Kanungo,
1982).
A
joint
factor
analysis
of
the
items
(principal-axis
factor
analysis
with
an
oblique
rotation)
showed
that
all
items
loaded
cleanly
on
only
the
factor
they
were
designed
to
measure.
Averaging
resilience,
identity,
and
planning
into
a
single
career
commitment
scale,
Carson
and
Bedeian
found
that
the
combined
scale
was
positively
related
to
age,
tenure
in
career
field,
and
organization
tenure
and
negatively
related
to
career
and
job