ArticlePDF Available

The Boundaryless Career Attitude and Organisational Commitment among Public Accountants in Penang, Malaysia

Authors:
  • Peninsula College Georgetown (The Ship Campus)

Abstract

This paper aims to study the impact of boundaryless career attitude (organisational mobility preference and boundaryless mindset) on organisational commitment (affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment). Specifically, we predicted that employees who demonstrate a high boundaryless career attitude would be less committed to their employers. A sample of 132 public accountants was drawn from 15 accounting firms in Penang. A three-stage sampling was used in this study started with cluster sampling, followed by systematic sampling, and finally convenience sampling. Multiple regression analysis was used in the study and the results shown that organisational mobility preference was significantly negatively related to affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. It also revealed that boundaryless mindset was significantly negatively related only to continuance commitment. Theoretically, the findings mainly supported the findings by Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009). Practically, the findings implied that practitioners of accounting firms should implement policies to cater to the needs of the boundaryless career actors by providing career relevant skills, training, meaningful jobs, and opportunities for secondment. In conclusion, this research revealed the growing importance of the boundaryless career attitude in affecting organisational commitment among public accountants in Penang, Malaysia.
304
Journal of Social and Development Sciences
Vol. 3, No. 9, pp. 304-312, Sep 2012 (ISSN 2221-1152)
The Boundaryless Career Attitude and Organisational Commitment among Public
Accountants in Penang, Malaysia
*Gim Chien Wei Gabriel1, Mat Desa Nasina2
1Wawasan Open University School of Business and Administration, Malaysia
2Universiti Sains Malaysia School of Distance Education (Management), Malaysia
*nasinawou@gmail.com
Abstract: This paper aims to study the impact of boundaryless career attitude (organisational mobility
preference and boundaryless mindset) on organisational commitment (affective commitment,
continuance commitment, and normative commitment). Specifically, we predicted that employees who
demonstrate a high boundaryless career attitude would be less committed to their employers. A sample
of 132 public accountants was drawn from 15 accounting firms in Penang. A three-stage sampling was
used in this study started with cluster sampling, followed by systematic sampling, and finally convenience
sampling. Multiple regression analysis was used in the study and the results shown that organisational
mobility preference was significantly negatively related to affective commitment, continuance
commitment, and normative commitment. It also revealed that boundaryless mindset was significantly
negatively related only to continuance commitment. Theoretically, the findings mainly supported the
findings by Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009). Practically, the findings implied that practitioners of
accounting firms should implement policies to cater to the needs of the boundaryless career actors by
providing career relevant skills, training, meaningful jobs, and opportunities for secondment. I n
conclusion, this research revealed the growing importance of the boundaryless career attitude in affecting
organisational commitment among public accountants in Penang, Malaysia.
Keywords: Boundaryless career, organisational commitment, public accountants, Malaysia
1. Introduction
This paper aims to study the impact of boundaryless career attitude (organisational mobility preference
and boundaryless mindset) on organisational commitment (affective commitment, continuance
commitment, and normative commitment).Organisational commitment has always been a topic of
interest to academics studying on accountants in the public accounting environment (Ketchand &
Strawser, 2001). Accountants are professionals equipped with skills that are transferable from one
organisation to another organisation. Everyone knows that every single organisation needs at least an
accountant to manage his or her accounts. There is also a common cliché, which says accountancy is a
recession proof profession. Organisational commitment is important because the lack of it could cause
some adverse consequences. Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2002) showed that low levels
of organisational commitment could lead to turnover intention, actual turnover, poor attendance, poor
organisational citizenship behaviour, poor performance, and it affects employees’ health and well-being.
Parker and Kohlmeyer III (2005) found that low organisational commitment is a predictor of high
turnover intention among public accountants. Due to the magnitude of organisational commitment, this
paper looks into the organisational commitment among the public accountants in Penang, Malaysia. The
term boundaryless career was coined by Arthur (1994) and popularised by Arthur and Rousseau (1996),
who described it as occupational paths that are not bounded to a single organisation but expands across
various organisations to develop competencies and human capital. Sullivan and Arthur (2006) have
further conceptualised on the boundaryless career as one that comprises of two dimensions: physical
mobility and psychological mobility. The traditional organisational career based on the traditional
psychological contract where employees work for life in return for monetary reward and job security has
been replaced by a new contract based on continuous learning and identity change (Hall, 1996). The
traditional organisational career was the trend in the mid-80s and decades ago, where everyone was
expected to follow the logic of vertical mobility within a firm but is no longer the norm today (Arthur &
Rousseau, 1996). The changing trend in careers and employment suggest that many employees no longer
have strong commitment to their employers.
Organisational commitment hardly exists in accounting firms. Many accountants work in public
accounting firms to gain technical expertise and valuable experience liaising with corporate clients, who
305
might be their future employer (DeFillippi & Arthur, 1994). As a result, these accountants will be very
mobile in their careers, as they will leverage their experience working in accounting firms to gain entry
into other corporate organisations, especially client firms (DeFillippi & Arthur, 1994). Additionally, the
accounting profession in Malaysia is suffering from brain drain as Malaysian accountants are flocking to
places like China, Singapore, Hong Kong and UK (Tomlinson, Abdullah, Kolesnikov-Jessop, 2008). If the
brain drain continues, this will lead to a chronic shortage of 16,000 qualified accountants in Malaysia by
2020 (Tomlinson et al., 2008). There is also a claim by a panellist at a forum organised by “Accountants
Today” that was held in 2007 that the Malaysian accounting profession is suffering from brain drain and
this issue needs to be addressed (Ravendran, 2008). Hence, a practical problem that plagues Malaysia
deserved attention for a research to be done. This research hopes to fill in the research gap on the
boundaryless career and organisational commitment literature and to add further understanding to the
literature. Ever since the boundaryless career attitude scale was developed by Briscoe, Hall, & DeMuth
(2006), there is still minimal quantitative research being conducted on the boundaryless career attitude,
furthermore, especially in Malaysia. This research therefore could also facilitate the development of new
hypotheses for further research in this area. This research attempts to answer the research questions
below:
Is there a relationship between perceived organisational mobility preference and organisational
commitment (affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment)?
Is there a relationship between perceived boundaryless mindset and organisational commitment
(affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment)?
2. Literature Review
Organisational Commitment: The term organisational commitment has been around since the 1960s.
Academics have come a long way in defining organisational commitment in various ways. Becker (1960)
was the first to conceptualise the term commitment, which lent towards fruitful academic discussion in
the years to come. Meyer and Allen (1991) expanded the concept of organisational commitment as a
psychological state that includes desire, need, and obligation to remain with an employer. As a result, they
came up with a three-component model of organisational commitment, which had since led the way on
new theoretical development on organisational commitment. According to them, the three components of
organisational commitments are affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative
commitment. Meyer and Allen (1991) defined affective commitment as “employee’s emotional
attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organisation”. Employees will develop affective
or emotional attachment to the employer when the employees share a common goal with the employer
and are willing to assist the employer to achieve those goals (Ketchand & Strawser, 2001). Meyer and
Allen (1991) defined continuance commitment as “an awareness of the costs associated with leaving the
organisation”. Johnson, Chang, and Yang (2010) explained continuance commitment as the need to
remain employed with the same employer due to the reluctance to forgo desirable personal outcomes or
when there is a perceived lack of employment opportunities elsewhere. Meyer and Allen (1991) defined
normative commitment as “a feeling of obligation to continue employment”. Meyer & Herscovitch (2001)
claimed that employees develop normative commitment due to the obligation to reciprocate with loyalty
and commitment after receiving benefits from the organisation or when there is internalisation of norms
through socialisation.
Boundaryless Career Attitude: As emphasised by Arthur and Rousseau (1996), the boundaryless career
is the opposite of the traditional organisational career. To understand the boundaryless career, one has to
understand the traditional organisational career first. The traditional organisational career is
characterised as a career that is bounded to a single large stable organisation with an orderly
employment arrangements achieved through vertical coordination. This implies that the boundaryless
career is “not tied to a single organisation, not represented by an orderly sequence, and marked by less
vertical coordination and stability” (Briscoe & Hall, 2006).One with a boundaryless career attitude would
not remain within a single organisation or line of work over the course of their careers and would self-
manage their careers by seizing new opportunities to develop their human capital and employability
(Cheramie et al., 2007). Employees who possess the boundaryless career attitude are said to be
independent and mobile (Arthur & Rousseau, 1994). Such employees do not rely on the traditional
organisational career arrangements or plans laid out by their employers. Instead, they detach their
identity from their employers and identify themselves to their vocation, careers, or profession (DeFillippi
& Arthur, 1994; Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, 2003). Sullivan and Arthur (2006) conceptualised boundaryless
career as a career that comprises two dimensions of mobility, which are physical mobility and
306
psychological mobility. In another words, a boundaryless careerist would move between organisations
(physical boundaries) and/or believe they have the capacity to move across boundaries (psychological
boundaries) (Cheramie, Sturman, & Walsh, 2007). Based on these two dimensions, Briscoe et al. (2006)
conceptualised physical mobility as organisational mobility preference and psychological mobility as
boundaryless mindset. Sullivan and Arthur (2006,) defined physical mobility as the “actual movement
between jobs, firms, occupations and countries”. Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009)interpreted physical
mobility as organisational mobility preference meaning that a person has a strong desire to work for
multiple organisations and will not just work in one organisation for a lifetime. Sullivan & Arthur (2006)
defined psychological mobility as “the capacity to move as seen through the mind of the career actor”.
Briscoe, Hall, & DeMuth (2006) interpreted psychological mobility as boundaryless mindset and
explained it as an attitude that initiates and pursues work-related relationships across organisational
boundaries from a set location.
Boundaryless career and organisational commitment: The hypotheses that the boundaryless career
attitude and organisational commitment is negatively correlated were first developed by Briscoe and
Finkelstein (2009). Based on a logical argument, Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009) explored and
hypothesised that career actors with boundaryless career attitude will be less committed to their
employers because boundaryless career actors are more agentic, independent, and proactive and will not
hesitate to leave their employers when their needs are not met. In this paper, we seek to understand the
conclusion made by Briscoe and Finkelstein. This paper looks into the relationship of the boundaryless
career attitude (organisational mobility preference and boundaryless mindset) on organisational
commitment (affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment) among
public accountants in Penang, Malaysia.
Figure 1: The Theoretical Framework of the Study
Development of Hypotheses
Organisational Mobility Preference and Organisational Commitment (Affective Commitment,
Continuance Commitment, and Normative Commitment): Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009) claimed that
those who like to switch jobs are less attached emotionally to their employers. Most importantly, they
found support that organisational mobility preference was significantly negatively related to affective
commitment. Hence,
H1. Perceived organisational mobility preference is negatively related to affective commitment.
Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009) added that those with strong preference for organisational mobility are
more likely to leave the organisation due to their independent nature. Since they are independent, such
individuals are not concerned about the job alternatives available. They added that those who like to
switch jobs are less attached, for economic reasons, to their employers compared to those with lower
preference for organisational mobility. Most importantly, they found support that organisational mobility
preference was significantly negatively related to continuance commitment. Hence,
H2. Perceived organisational mobility preference is negatively related to continuance commitment.
Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009) claimed that normative commitment is virtually antithetical to the concept
of boundaryless career. Hence, those who like to switch jobs have lower obligation to stay with their
employers compared to those with lower preference for organisational mobility. Most importantly, they
Boundaryless Career Attitude
Organisational Mobility
Preference
Boundaryless Mindset
Organisational Commitment
Affective Commitment
Continuance Commitment
Normative Commitment
307
found support that organisational mobility preference was significantly negatively related to normative
commitment. Hence,
H3. Perceived organisational mobility preference is negatively related to normative commitment.
Boundaryless Mindset and Organisational Commitment (Affective Commitment, Continuance
Commitment, and Normative Commitment): According to the social exchange theory, when a
boundaryless career actor who yearned for continuous learning and personal growth could not achieve
their needs at their current workplace, they will lose their affective commitment and look for
opportunities elsewhere (Fernandez & Enache, 2008). Fernandez and Enache (2008) claimed that a
person with boundaryless mindset will be inclined to pursue opportunities for continuous learning and
personal growth will leave the company if the company could not provide such opportunities. Hence,
according to the social exchange theory, Fernandez and Enache (2008) explained that such individuals
will exhibit low affective commitment because there is no fit between the employee and the employer.
For exploratory reasons, the hypothesis below is hence developed to be tested in the Malaysian
environment.
H4. Perceived boundaryless mindset is negatively related to affective commitment.
Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009) hypothesised that boundaryless mindset is negatively correlated to
continuance commitment. They argued that career actors with a strong boundaryless mindset will be
more independent and will not be bothered about the lack of job alternatives available in the market.
Hence, a career actor with a strong boundaryless mindset will possess a lower continuance commitment
towards his employer.
However, Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009) did not find support on the hypothesis that boundaryless
mindset is negatively related to continuance commitment. For exploratory reasons, the hypothesis below
is developed to be tested in the Malaysian environment.
H5. Perceived boundaryless mindset is negatively related to continuance commitment.
Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009) hypothesised that boundaryless mindset is negatively correlated to
normative commitment. They argued that normative commitment is virtually antithetical to the concept
of boundaryless career. Hence, a career actor with a strong boundaryless mindset will possess a lower
normative commitment towards his employer.
H6. Perceived boundaryless mindset is negatively related to normative commitment.
Based on Figure 1, in summary, six hypotheses are developed to test the relationship between
boundaryless career attitude and organisational commitment.
H1. Organisational mobility preference is negatively related to affective commitment.
H2. Organisational mobility preference is negatively related to continuance commitment.
H3. Organisational mobility preference is negatively related to normative commitment.
H4. Boundaryless mindset is negatively related to affective commitment.
H5. Boundaryless mindset is negatively related to continuance commitment.
H6. Boundaryless mindset is negatively related to normative commitment.
3. Methodology
Questionnaires were distributed to public accountants working in mid-tier accounting firms in Penang
using both probability sampling and non-probability sampling methods. Probability sampling was utilised
at the first stage and the second stage while the non-probability sampling method was utilised at the third
stage. At the first stage, cluster sampling was used to select the accounting firms located within the
vicinity of Georgetown, Penang. From the Malaysian Institute of Accountants website, there are 1 46 mid-
tier accounting firms located in the State of Penang. To select accounting firms that are located within the
vicinity of Georgetown, the clusters are divided based on the postcodes. Based on the websites of
Poskod.com and Dromoz.com, the postcodes located within the vicinity of Georgetown are 10000, 10050,
10100, 10150, 10200, 10250, 10300, 10350, 10400, 10450, 10460, and 10470. At the second stage,
systematic sampling was used to select the clusters. An interval of four was used starting from 10050.
308
Hence, the selected postcodes are 10050, 10250, and 10450. There are 30 mid-tier accounting firms
located within these three postcodes. Out of these 30 firms which were contacted, only 15 firms agreed to
participate in the survey. At the third stage, the questionnaires were distributed to all of the public
accountants working in those 15 firms using a convenience sampling method. It is because these 15 firms
declined to reveal the list of its employees’ names. The researcher has no control on the distribution of
the questionnaires within each accounting firms. A total of 223 questionnaires were distributed to those
15 accounting firms.
Boundaryless career attitude: Organisational mobility preference was assessed using the five-item
measure developed by Briscoe et al. (2006). The scale was measured using a five-point Likert scale
ranging from (1) “to a little or no extent” to (5) “to a great extent”. The Cronbanch’s alpha for this scale
was .76 (Briscoe et al., 2006).Boundaryless mindset was assessed using the eight-item measure
developed by Briscoe et al. (2006). The scale was measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from
(1) “to a little or no extent” to (5) “to a great extent”. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .87 (Briscoe
et al., 2006).
Organisational commitment: Affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative
commitment were measured based on the scales developed by Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993). Each of
the components of commitment has 6-items respectively (Meyer et al., 1993). The Cronbach’s alpha for
the three scales are .82, .74, and .83 respectively (Meyer et al., 1993). All of these measures were
measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree”.
Demographic profiles: The demographic profiles of the respondents were assessed by age, gender,
marital status, race, academic qualification, organisational tenure, current position, positional tenure,
monthly salary, and department.
4. Results and Analysis
Out of the 223 questionnaires distributed, 145 were collected back, giving a response rate of 65%.
However, there were 13 questionnaires, which were deemed unusable because the questionnaires were
filled in either incompletely or incorrectly. As a result, only 132 questionnaires can be used, giving a final
response rate of 59%.The demographic profiles of the 132 respondents are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Demographic
variables
Categories
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Age
Gender
Marital Status
Race
Academic
Qualification
Organisational
Tenure
30 and below
31 40 years
41 50 years
51 and above
Male
Female
Single
Married
Separated/Divorced/Widowed
Malay
Chinese
Indian
Others
Certificate or Equivalent
Diploma
Advanced Diploma
Bachelor’s Degree
Professional Qualification
Postgraduate
Less than 1 year
1 3 years
4 6 years
7 9 years
115
11
5
1
48
84
117
15
0
6
120
5
1
1
14
16
67
34
0
65
39
18
4
87.1
8.3
3.8
0.8
36.4
63.6
88.6
11.4
0
4.5
90.9
3.8
0.8
0.8
10.6
12.1
50.8
25.8
0
49.2
29.5
13.6
3.0
309
Position
Positional
Tenure
Monthly salary
Department
More than 9 years
Associate/Junior
Semi-senior
Senior
Managerial
Director
Less than 1 year
1 3 years
4 6 years
7 9 years
More than 9 years
Below RM2,001
RM2,001 RM3,000
RM3,001 RM4,000
RM4,001 RM5,000
More than RM5,000
Audit
Tax
Other Advisory Services
6
74
19
24
13
2
75
43
9
1
4
75
30
18
4
5
98
18
16
4.5
56.1
14.4
18.2
9.8
1.5
56.8
32.6
6.8
0.8
3.0
56.8
22.7
13.6
3.0
3.8
74.2
13.6
12.1
The data collected were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software version
17.0. In Table 2 below, all of the variables have reliability coefficients of above the recommended level of
.7 as suggested by Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010). The correlations between the variables are
also shown in Table 2 below. A majority of them have correlations which are statistically significant at the
0.01 level. The correlation between affective commitment and continuance commitment is statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. There was no correlation between boundaryless mindset and affective
commitment.
Table 2: Descriptive of the Variables
Variables
1
2
3
4
5
Organisational mobility preference
Boundaryless mindset
Affective commitment
Continuance commitment
Normative commitment
(.82)
.20*
.30**
.52**
.66**
(.87)
.17
.29**
.06
(.75)
.22*
.52**
(.79)
.41**
(.89)
Reliability estimates (Cronbach’s Coefficients Alpha) are shown in the diagonal.
** p< .01, correlation is significant at the .01 level
* p< .05, correlation is significant at the .05 level
Multiple regressions were performed on affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative
commitment and the results are shown in three separate tables below. In Table 3 below with affective
commitment as the dependent variable, the R2 value revealed that 10% of the variance for affective
commitment was explained by organisational mobility preference and boundaryless mindset. This
multiple regression model was a significant model because the F ratio was significant (F = 7.29, p< .01). It
means that the combination of organisational mobility preference and boundaryless mindset was a good
fit in predicting affective commitment. Looking at each predictors individually, organisational mobility
preference (β = –.28, p< .01) was a significant predictor for affective commitment. However, boundaryless
mindset (β = –.11, p> .10) was not found to be a significant predictor. Therefore, only organisational
mobility preference was significantly negatively related to affective commitment. As a result, H1 was
supported and H4 was not supported.
Table 3: Multiple Regression Results for Affective Commitment
Independent Variables
Standardised Coefficients (β)
Organisational mobility preference
Boundaryless mindset
.28***
.11
R2
Adjusted R2
F-change
.10
.09
7.29
* p< .10, ** p< .05, *** p< .01
310
In Table 4 below with continuance commitment as the dependent variable, the R2 value revealed that
30% of the variance for continuance commitment was explained by organisational mobility preference
and boundaryless mindset. It means that 70% of the variance for continuance commitment was explained
by other unknown additional variables. This multiple regression model (F = 28.09, p< .01) was a
significant model in predicting continuance commitment. Looking at each predictors individually,
organisational mobility preference = .48, p< .01) was a significant predictor for continuance
commitment. Additionally, boundaryless mindset (β = .20, p< .01) was also found to be a significant
predictor for continuance commitment. Therefore, both organisational mobility preference and
boundaryless mindset were significantly negatively related to continuance commitment. As a result, H2
and H5 were supported.
Table 4: Multiple Regression Results for Continuance Commitment
Independent Variables
Standardised Coefficients (β)
Organisational mobility preference
Boundaryless mindset
.48***
.20***
R2
Adjusted R2
F-change
.30
.29
28.09
* p< .10, ** p< .05, *** p< .01
In Table 5 below where normative commitment is the dependent variable, the R2 value revealed that 47%
of the variance for normative commitment was explained by organisational mobility preference and
boundaryless mindset. It means that 53% of the variance for normative commitment was explained by
other unknown additional variables. This multiple regression model (F = 56.57, p< .01) was a significant
model in predicting normative commitment. Looking at each predictors individually, organisational
mobility preference (β = –.70, p< .01) was a significant predictor for normative commitment. However,
boundaryless mindset = .07, p> .10) was not found to be a significant predictor. Therefore, only
organisational mobility preference was significantly negatively related to normative commitment. As a
result, H3 was supported and H6 was not supported.
Table 5: Multiple Regression Results for Normative Commitment
Independent Variables
Standardised Coefficients (β)
Organisational mobility preference
Boundaryless mindset
.70***
.07
R2
Adjusted R2
F-change
.47
.46
56.57
* p< .10, ** p< .05, *** p< .01
5. Discussion and Conclusion
The findings revealed that organisational mobility preference has a negative relationship with all
components of organisational commitment, which are affective commitment, continuance commitment,
and normative commitment. This is in congruence with the findings from Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009)
in the United States. The result also supported the hypothesis that boundaryless mindset is negatively
related to continuance commitment, contradicting with Briscoe and Finkelstein’s finding. It is definitely
refreshing to see this revelation to the contrary. The researchers therefore suggested that more research
should be conducted to support or to annul the hypotheses that boundaryless mindset has a negative
relationship with all of the three components of organisational commitment before calling for
boundaryless mindset to be decoupled from organisational commitment. The results provided insights to
practitioners in the public accounting profession in Malaysia. Since the study revealed that the
organisational mobility preference has a significant negative relationship with all of the components of
organisational commitment, employers must be able to cater to this growing appetite for mobility. One
way to feed the public accountants preference for organisational mobility is by offering secondment
opportunities. The employers of the public accounting firms must begin to explore the idea of seconding
selected employees to other branches in another location, whether in Malaysia or in the overseas. The
first limitation of the research is that the sample only comprised respondents from the public accounting
profession within Penang. The result may not be generalised to the entire Malaysian workforce as a
whole. Therefore, a similar research should be performed on respondents beyond the public accounting
311
profession throughout Malaysia or on other samples of occupational settings to ensure the results could
be generalised to the entire Malaysian workforce. Another limitation is that this current study only looked
at the relationship between the boundaryless career attitude and organisational commitment. Further
studies can be performed by adding a moderator. Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009) claimed that openness
to experience or mastery-learning orientation would be a viable variable that moderates the relationship
between the boundaryless career attitude and organisational commitment. Despite the limitations, the
study contributes towards the literature on the boundaryless career attitude and organisational
commitment. This study has demonstrated that a person with a strong preference for organisational
mobility will exhibit a lower form of affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative
commitment. Furthermore, the study also showed that a person with a strong boundaryless mindset will
exhibit a lower form of continuance commitment. With the coming of the boundaryless career era and the
insatiable appetite for continuous learning and personal growth among employees today (Hall, 1996), it is
even more important for employers to keep in check the commitment of their employees. Why? It is
because committed employees are more likely to remain in the organisation than are uncommitted
employees (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Therefore, employers must also engage in continuous learning to learn
how to feed the growing appetite for physical and psychological mobility among employees today.
References
Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: a new perspective for organizational inquiry. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 15, 295-306.
Arthur, M. B. & Rousseau, D. (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new
organizational era. New York: Oxford University Press.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M. & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment:
Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464-475.
Bellesi, B. E. (1999). The changing American workforce. Management Review, 3(9).
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,
242-260.
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. & Demuth, R. L. F. (2006). Protean and boundaryless careers: An empirical
exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 30-47.
Cheramie, R. A., Sturman, M. C. & Walsh, K. (2007). Executive career management: Switching
organizations and the boundaryless career. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 359-374.
DeFillippi, R. J. & Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A competency based perspective. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 15, 307-324.
Fernandez, V. & Enache, M. (2008). Exploring the relationship between protean and boundaryless career
attitudes and affective commitment through the lens of a fuzzy set QCA methodology. Intangible
Capital, 1(4), 31-66.
Eby, L. T., Butts, M. & Lockwood, A. (2003). Predictors of success in the era of the boundaryless career.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 689-708.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review,
25, 161-178.
Granrose, C. S. & Baccili, P. A. (2006). Do psychological contracts include boundaryless or protean
careers? Career Development International, 11, 163-182.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective. 7th Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hall, D. T. (1996). Protean careers of the 21st Century. Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), 8-16.
Hipple, S. (1998). Contingent work: Results from the second survey. Monthly Labor Review, 3, 22-35.
Johnson, R. E., Chang, D. C. H. & Yang, L. Q. (2010). Commitment and motivation at work: The relevance of
employee identity and regulatory focus. The Academy of Management Review, 35, 226-245.
Ketchand, A. A. & Strawser, J. R. (2001). Multiple dimensions of organizational commitment: Implications
for future accounting research. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 13, 221-251.
Lawler, E. J. & Thye, S. R. (1999). Bringing emotions into social exchange theory. Annual Review of
Sociology, 25, 217-244.
Meyer, J. & Allen, N. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human
Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
312
Meyer, J. & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application, Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J. & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension
and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551.
Meyer, J. P. & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human
Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L. & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative
commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.
Parker, R. J. & Kohlmeyer-III, J. M. (2005). Organizational justice and turnover in public accounting firms:
A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 357-369.
Ravendran, A. (2008). Brain drain or global mobility. Accountants Today, 1, 20-24.
Robinson, S. L. & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the
norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245-259.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 2, 121-139.
Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s obligations: A study of
psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389-400.
Sullivan, S. E. & Arthur, M. B. (2006). The evolution of the boundaryless career concept: Examining
physical and psychological mobility. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 19-29.
Tomlinson, P., Abdullah, N. A. & Kolesnikov-Jessop, A. (2008). Dispatch (Asia version), Accounting and
Business. Asia: ACCA.http://www.accaglobal.com/members/publications
/accounting_business/archive/2008/February/3065956 (accessed February 17, 2011).
... From this perspective, a protean career orientation, which reflects low levels of loyalty and commitment to a particular organization, was expected to have a negative relationship with organizational commitment, as the focus for individuals is on developing and expressing their own values, rather than prioritising organizational values and outcomes. Studies have supported this contention using both global (Rowe, 2013) and RUNNING HEAD: PROTEAN CAREER ORIENTATION ACROSS TIME 6 multidimensional measures of commitment (Gabriel & Nasina, 2012), although a negative finding is not universal, as some studies have found positive (Grimland, Vigoda-Gadot, & Baruch, 2012) and null relationships (Briscoe & Finkelstein, 2009). ...
Article
Full-text available
We surveyed 168 young adults (83% male; mean age = 24 years), who worked for a large electronics manufacturing company in Indonesia, on two occasions, six months apart, on measures of protean career orientation, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention-to-quit, and tested the relationships between protean career orientation and the three outcome variables over time. We tested three cross-lagged models (standard causal, reverse causal, and reciprocal causal), and found support for the standard causal model. Higher levels of protean career orientation at T1 were associated with lower levels of organizational commitment and job satisfaction and higher levels of intention-to-quit at T2, after the effects of T1 were controlled. Results indicated poorer individual and organizational outcomes after six months for employees with higher levels of protean orientation.
Article
The protean/boundaryless career concepts refer to people becoming more self-directed and flexible in managing their careers in response to societal shifts in work arrangements. A sizable literature has emerged on protean/boundaryless career orientations/preferences (PBCO). Questions remain, however, about the structure of PBCO and whether they predict important criteria. The PBCO literature is largely disconnected from broader individual-level career research, making it unclear how PBCO intersect with career models based on other characteristics. We address these questions by systematically reviewing/meta-analyzing PBCO research. On the basis of 135 demographically/occupationally diverse samples from 35 countries (45,288 individuals), we find no support for traditional distinctions between protean and boundaryless orientations- protean self-directed, protean values-driven, and boundaryless psychological mobility all load onto a single general factor, labeled proactive career orientation, and are only weakly related to boundaryless physical mobility preferences. We also find that PBCO predict career self-management behaviors and career satisfaction but are less related to non-career-focused attitudes, objective success, or physical mobility behavior. PBCO are strongly related to proactivity-related and self-efficacy personality traits. We use these findings to propose an integrative model for how PBCO and other dispositions mutually influence career behavior. We discuss when PBCO may have advantages over broad traits for understanding careers, implications for counseling practice, and directions for future research.
Preprint
Full-text available
The protean/boundaryless career concepts refer to people becoming more self-directed and flexible in managing their careers in response to societal shifts in work arrangements. A sizeable literature has emerged on protean/boundaryless career orientations/preferences (PBCO). Questions remain, however, about the structure of PBCO and whether they predict important criteria. The PBCO literature is largely disconnected from broader individual-level career research, making it unclear how PBCO intersect with career models based on other characteristics. We address these questions by systematically reviewing/meta-analyzing PBCO research. Based on 135 demographically/occupationally-diverse samples from 35 countries (45,288 individuals), we find no support for traditional distinctions between protean and boundaryless orientations—protean self-directed, protean values-driven, and boundaryless psychological mobility all load onto a single general factor, labelled “proactive career orientation”, and are only weakly related to boundaryless physical mobility preferences. We also find PBCO predict career self-management behaviors and satisfaction but are less related to non-career-focused attitudes, objective success, or physical mobility behavior. PBCO are strongly related to proactivity-related and self-efficacy personality traits. We use these findings to propose an integrative model for how PBCO and other dispositions mutually influence career behavior. We discuss when PBCO may have advantages over broad traits for understanding careers, implications for counseling practice, and directions for future research.
Article
Full-text available
Since the publication of scales to measure boundaryless and protean career orientations by Briscoe et al. (2006) and Baruch and Quick (2007), quantitative research on contemporary career development has increased dramatically. However, results of quantitative studies of these career attitudes have variable and inconsistent, leading some researchers to conclude the relationship of career orientation to other personal characteristics and work outcomes is highly dependent on situational factors. The present study tests this hypothesis with systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the convergent, divergent, and criterion-related validity of measures of protean and boundaryless career orientations. Results support the validity of protean and psychological boundaryless orientations, but suggest that physical mobility preferences form a distinct construct. New career orientation is strongly associated with basic and compound personality traits, as well as with positive job attitudes and subjective career success. Preliminary results suggest mobility preferences may predict mobility behavior. The continuing dominance of theoretical and qualitative research in this area and the need for further quantitative studies are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to establish whether positive or negative relationships exist between boundaryless and protean career attitudes (respectively) and organizational commitment and whether such relationships can be moderated by development opportunities. Design/methodology/approach Surveys from 212 part‐time MBAs were analyzed using correlation, regression, or moderated multiple regression to explore relationships between boundaryless career attitudes (boundaryless mindset, organizational mobility), protean career attitudes (self‐directed career management, values‐driven career management), organizational commitment (affective, continuance and normative), and development opportunities. Findings Only organizational mobility preference was correlated (negatively) with each type of commitment. Boundaryless mindset was moderated in its relationship to normative commitment in that lower development opportunities resulted in lower commitment for those with higher levels of boundaryless mindset. Research limitations/implications The study is limited due to sample nature and the lack of longitudinal design. Also, it does not provide implications for other types of commitment that may be impacted by career attitudes and development opportunities (occupational commitment, for example). Practical implications A counterintuitive finding but important implication from this research is that employers should not assume that protean and boundaryless employees (respectively) will be less committed to the organization. Another practical finding is that developmental opportunities, while important to all employees, did not generally make employees with protean and boundaryless attitudes more committed to their organization. Originality/value The paper is the first, to one's knowledge, to assess organizational commitment with specific measures of boundaryless and protean career attitudes. While the results are simple, they refute many stereotypes of the new career and, in that sense, add an important perspective to the career literature.
Article
The manner in which the concept of reciprocity is implicated in functional theory is explored, enabling a reanalysis of the concepts of "survival" and "exploitation." The need to distinguish between the concepts of complementarity and reciprocity is stressed. Distinctions are also drawn between (1) reciprocity as a pattern of mutually contingent exchange of gratifications, (2) the existential or folk belief in reciprocity, and (3) the generalized moral norm of reciprocity. Reciprocity as a moral norm is analyzed; it is hypothesized that it is one of the universal "principal components" of moral codes. As Westermarck states, "To requite a benefit, or to be grateful to him who bestows it, is probably everywhere, at least under certain circumstances, regarded as a duty. This is a subject which in the present connection calls for special consideration." Ways in which the norm of reciprocity is implicated in the maintenance of stable social systems are examined.
Article
Purpose – To examine the existence of career psychological contracts and consequences of perceived violations for traditional, protean and boundaryless career psychological contracts in one sample of aerospace employees. Design/methodology/approach – Structured questionnaires were used to collect data. Regression analysis was used to test hypotheses. Findings – Most employees consider traditional career goals like job security and upward mobility important, but believed the organization failed to meet these perceived obligations. Perceived violations of psychological contract obligations for job security and training reduced organizational commitment, and violations of perceived upward mobility opportunity obligations were related to intentions to leave. Employees' commitment to managers moderated the effect of low levels of organizational career contract violations, but had no effect on intentions to leave if managers violated psychological career contracts or if the organization had a high level of perceived career psychological contract violations. Originality/value – Organizations could benefit from providing more training in career support for managers and scholars should examine organizational and managerial psychological contracts as separate constructs.
Article
▪ Abstract We analyze and review how research on emotion and emotional phenomena can elaborate and improve contemporary social exchange theory. After identifying six approaches from the psychology and sociology of emotion, we illustrate how these ideas bear on the context, process, and outcome of exchange in networks and groups. The paper reviews the current state of the field, develops testable hypotheses for empirical study, and provides specific suggestions for developing links between theories of emotion and theories of exchange.