The Impact of Career
Boundarylessness on Subjective
Career Success: A Contingency
Approach
Dr. Sidika Nihal Colakoglu
February 15, 2007
Norfolk State University
1
Overview















Background of the Study
Gaps in Prior Research
Objectives of the Study
Research Model
Definitions of the Study’s Constructs
Research Hypotheses
Research Design and Methodology
Results
Additional Analyses
Discussion
Conclusions
Limitations
Contributions of the Study
Implications
Suggestions for Future Research
2
Background and Impetus
for the Study
 Emergence of “New Economy” (global competition,
technological advances, shorter product cycles)
 Changes in organizational structures (leaner, flatter
organizations), processes, and human resources
practices (increased use of part-time and temporary
employees)
 Increased rate of job loss resulting from downsizing,
restructuring, mergers, and acquisitions
 Increased job mobility and decreased job stability
 Diminished sense of job security
3
Background and Impetus
for the Study
 Changes in psychological contracts from relational
to transactional
 A move from organization-driven careers to
individual-driven careers (career agency)
 Heightened importance of subjective career
 Declining number of individuals pursuing a
traditional, organizational career
 Emergence of boundaryless careers with
unpredictable, discontinuous, disorderly paths
4
Gaps in Prior Research
 Lack of empirical research testing previously offered
theoretical assertions regarding the consequences of
experiencing a boundaryless career.
 Primary focus on consequences of boundaryless
careers for macro level constituencies such as
organizations, occupational groups, or society.
 Lack of a theoretical model explaining how and why
experiencing a boundaryless career influences
subjective career success.
5
Gaps in Prior Research
 Lack of research identifying and examining
conditions under which one’s boundaryless career
experience has positive or negative consequences
for his/her career success.
 Lack of a comprehensive and continuous measure of
career boundarylessness.
6
Objectives of the study
 Develop and test a contingency model that examines
the impact of career boundarylessness on subjective
career success.
 Identify and examine factors that explain the
relationship between career boundarylessness and
subjective career success.
 Identify and examine factors that moderate the
relationship between career boundarylessness and
subjective career success.
 Offer a comprehensive and continuous measure of
career boundarylessness.
7
Is Career Boundarylessness a
Boon or Bane?
 The Positive Link


The Enactment Perspective (Arthur & Rousseau,
1996; Weick, 1996)
Strong vs. Weak Situations Argument (Mischel, 1977;
Weick, 1996)
 The Negative Link

The Stress Perspective (Arthur, Inkson, & Pringle,
1999; Mirvis & Hall, 1996; Sullivan, 1999)
8
The Research Model
Career Competencies
- Knowing-why
- Knowing-how
- Knowing-whom
Career
Autonomy
Subjective
Career
Success
Career
Boundarylessness
Career
Insecurity
9
The Positive Link
Career Competencies
- Knowing-why
- Knowing-how
- Knowing-whom
H1b
Career
Boundarylessness
H1a
Career
Autonomy
H1c
Subjective
Career
Success
10
The Negative Link
Career Competencies
- Knowing-why
- Knowing-how
- Knowing-whom
H2b
Career
Boundarylessness
H2a
Career
Insecurity
H2c
Subjective
Career
Success
11
 Traditional Careers
 Life-time, permanent, fulltime employment in one or
two organizations
 Job Stability
 Intra-organizational mobility:
upward, orderly, and
continuous moves.
Career Outcomes
Traditional Career vs.
Boundaryless Career
Years
12
 Boundaryless Career

Frequent mobility across:
 Organizations, jobs, occupations,
geographical locations, and/or
industries
 Different employment forms
(part-time vs. full-time, temporary
vs. permanent, organizational vs.
self-employment)
 Inter-organizational mobility with
discontinuous, disorderly, and
multi-directional moves
Career outcomes
Traditional Career vs.
Boundaryless Career
Years/Jobs
13
Boundaryless Career
“A career that crosses multiple
boundaries in a non-linear manner”
14
Independent Variable
Career Boundarylessness (CB)(1)
The extent to which a person’s work-related
experiences cross multiple boundaries in a
non-linear manner (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996;
Arthur et al., 1999; Mirvis & Hall, 1996).
15
Independent Variable
Career Boundarylessness (2)
Prerequisite: Inter-organizational mobility

Mobility characteristics:
1. Frequency (how often boundaries crossed)
2. Type (what types of boundaries crossed e.g.,
occupational, industrial, geographical, and/or
employment forms—part-time/full time;
temporary/permanent; organizational/self
employment )
16
Independent Variable
Career Boundarylessness (3)
3. Non-linearity (the extent of deviance
from an orderly, continuous, upward
career mobility)

Direction of moves (upward, lateral, or
downward in terms of objective career
outcomes)

Discontinuity of moves (employment
gaps)
17
Mediators
Career Autonomy (CA)
The extent to which individuals perceive
the freedom and discretion to determine
and influence the pacing, shape, and
direction of their careers (Ito & Brotheridge,
200; Tetrick & Larocco, 1987: Ashforth, 1989).
18
Mediators
Career Insecurity (CIS)
The sense of powerlessness to
maintain desired employability in
one’s career (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt,
1984; Kanter, 1989).
 Perceived threat to the continuity of one’s
employability
 Perceived threat to the quality of
subsequent employment
19
Moderators
Career Competencies: Knowing-why
The extent to which an individual
understands his or her motives,
needs, abilities, interests, aspirations,
and values as they relate to work and
life experiences (Arthur et al, 1999; DeFillippi &
Arthur 1994, 1996; Hall, 2002).
20
Moderators
Career Competencies: Knowing-how
The extent to which one develops a
portfolio of work-related skills,
knowledge, and understanding that
are transferable to other employment
settings (e.g., companies,
occupations, or industries) (Arthur et al,
1999; DeFillippi & Arthur 1994, 1996).
21
Moderators
Career Competencies: Knowing-whom
The extent to which one develops a
wide network of relationships that can
provide information, influence,
guidance, and support to the
individual (Arthur et al, 1999; DeFillippi & Arthur
1994, 1996).
22
Dependent Variable
Subjective Career Success (SCS)
SCS: An person’s feelings of
accomplishment and satisfaction with
his/her career (Judge, Cable, Boudreau,
& Bretz, 1995).
Indicator of SCS -- Career Satisfaction: A
person’s positive emotional state
resulting from a personal evaluation of
his or her career or career experience
(Locke, 1976; Callanan, 1989).
23
Hypothesized Relationships
The Positive Link
H1a: There is a positive relationship
between career boundarylessness and
career autonomy.
24
Hypothesized Relationships
The Positive Link
 H1b: The relationship between career
boundarylessness and career autonomy is
moderated by career competencies. The
positive relationship between career
boundarylessness and career autonomy is
stronger for individuals with high career
competencies than individuals with low career
competencies.
25
Hypothesized Relationships
The Positive Link
 H1c: There is a positive relationship
between career autonomy and
subjective career success.
26
Hypothesized Relationships
The Negative Link
H2a: There is a positive relationship
between career boundarylessness and
career insecurity.
27
Hypothesized Relationships
The Negative Link
 H2b: The relationship between career
boundarylessness and career insecurity is
moderated by career competencies. The
positive relationship between career
boundarylessness and career insecurity is
stronger for individuals with low career
competencies than individuals with high career
competencies
28
Hypothesized Relationships
The Negative Link
 H2c: There is a negative relationship
between career insecurity and subjective
career success.
29
Research Design & Methodology
 Cross-sectional and correlational design
 Data collection Procedure
Pre-test (paper-pencil survey) N=6
 Pilot study (web-based survey) N=15
 Primary study (web-based survey) N=201
(5%) response rate)
 Sample Drexel E-MBA Alumni (All Cohorts); MBA

Alumni (cohorts from 1985 to 2004) and Current EMBA students.
 Criteria for selection of respondents
 Currently working individuals.
30
Measurement of Variables
Career Boundarylessness (CB)
 Career Boundarylessness (CB)
 Anchors:


“0” CB = A career spent in one organization
High CB = A career which is crossing frequent,
multiple boundaries in a non-linear manner.
31
Career Boundarylessness
(CB): Dimensions
 Frequency =  Org Number –1
 Direction =  Downward & Lateral Moves
 Type =  (Occupation changes)+ (industry changes)+ (location changes)+
(self-employments)+ (employment status)
 Discontinuity


 Number of Breaks
 Number of Months one had no paid
employment
32
Measurement of Variables
Career Boundarylessness- Career History Grid
First
Organization
Moving to this
org.
was a promotion,
lateral or
downward move
With this
move I
changed my
occupation
With this
move I
changed my
industry
With this
move I
relocated
I started as a
I started as a
I own(ed)
This
organization
Yes
No
Full-time e.
Part-time e.
Permanent e.
Temporary e.
Yes
No
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Before moving to
this org. I took a
career break
Number of
years in this
org.
Number of
promotions in
this org.
Number of
Lateral
moves in
this org.
Number of
downward
moves in
this org.
Number of
relocations
moves in
this org.
My leaving this
organization
was
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
Voluntary
Involuntary
Still work/c. job
Still work/with
cur. job
No
Yes, it lasted -----months.
------years
33
Measurement of Variables
Career Boundarylessness- Career History Grid
Next Org.
Moving to this
org.
was
With this
move I
changed my
occupation
With this
move I
changed my
industry
With this
move I
relocated
With this move
I changed my
emp. from
With this
move I
changed my
emp. from
I own(ed)
This
organization
Promotion
Lateral Move
Downward Move
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Full to Part-time
Part to Fulltime.
Remain Fullt
Remain partt
Perm. to temp
Temp. to perm.
Remain perm.
Remain temp.
Yes
No
Before moving to
this org. I took a
career break
Number of
years in this
org.
Number of
promotions in
this org.
Number of
Lateral
moves in
this org.
Number of
downward
moves in this
org.
Number of
relocations
moves in this
org.
My leaving this
organization
was
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
Voluntary
Involuntary
Still work/c. job
Still work/with cur.
job
No
Yes, it lasted -----months.
------years
34
Career Boundarylessness
(CB): Composite Score
Move
Inter-org
Mobility
Direction
Change
Occupat
ion
Change
Industry
Change
Location
Change
Selfemp.
Emp.
Status
Change
Number
Of
breaks
CB
Score
org1 >
org2
1
Promotion = 0
Lateral =1
Downward =1
Yes=1
Yes=1
Yes=1
Yes=1
Full-perm=0
Full-temp=1
Part-perm=1
Part-temp=1
Yes=1
Move 1
Max CB
Score = 8
org2>
org3
1
Promotion = 0
Lateral =1
Downward =1
Yes=1
Yes=1
Yes=1
Yes=1
Full-perm=0
Full-temp=1
Part-perm=1
Part-temp=1
Yes=1
Move 2
Max CB
Score = 6
Total CB Score = CB Move 1 + CB Move 2
Total CB Score = 14
35
Measurement of Variables
Mediators
Variable Name
Cronbach’s Alpha
No. of items
Source
Career Autonomy
11
A combination of
newly developed
and modified items
(Ito & Brotheridge,
2001; Tetrick &
Larocco, 1987;
Ashforth, 1989)
.92
Career Insecurity
9
Newly Developed
.90
36
Measurement of Variables
Moderators
Variable Name
No. of items
Source
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Knowing-why
competencies
8
Modified from Callanan (1989)
.75
Knowing-how
competencies
6
New items & Adopted from Eby,
Butts, & Lockwood (2003)
.87
Knowing-whom
competencies
11
New Items & Adopted from Eby,
Butts, Lockwood & (2003)
.89
Knowing-whom/out
competencies
8
New items & Adopted from Eby,
Butts, & Lockwood (2003)
.89
Knowing-whom/in
Competencies
3
New Items & Adopted from Eby,
Butts, Lockwood & (2003)
.89
37
Measurement of Variables
 Control variables

Career Tenure
38
Data Analysis
 Tests of Reliability and Validity
Explanatory Factor Analyses--Cronbach’s
Alpha
 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM):
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
 Descriptive Statistics
 Measure of Central Tendency, Correlations
 Tests of Hypotheses
 SEM: Path Analysis
 Multi-group Analyses

39
CFA Results
Model
Chi-SQ
Full
CFA
Model
947.3
DF
464
GFI
.78
AGFI
.75
IFI
CFI
.88
RMSEA
.87
.07
Note: Because of a small sample size (N=201), full CFA model provided a rather poor fit
to the data. For this reason, instead of a latent-variable model, an observed-variable
model is preferred to be used in the subsequent analyses.
40
The SEM Model
Direction
Frequency
Career
Autonomy
Occupation
Change
Industry
Change
Subjective
Career Success
Career
Boundarylessness
Location
Change
Employment
Status
Career
Insecurity
Self
Employment
Number of
Breaks
Duration of
Breaks
41
The SEM Results
.71**
R1
Direction
.95**
.55**
Frequency
Occupation
Change
.69**
Industry
Change
.74**
Career
Autonomy
.14*
Career
Boundarylessness
.23*
Subjective
Career Success
.52**
Location
Change
Employment
Status
-.08ns
.58**
Career
Insecurity
-.09ns
R2
* p <.05
** p <.001
Chi-Square = 41.9; df = 25; GFI = .96; Adj-GFI =.93; IFI = .97; CFI =.97; RMSEA =.06
42
The SEM Results--Summary
Career
Autonomy
Subjective
Career
Success
Career
Boundarylessness
Career
Insecurity
------- Not significant
____ Significant
43
The SEM Results Summary:
Direct Relationships
From
To
Career
Boundarylessness
(CB)
Career
Autonomy (CA)
Career
Boundarylessness
(CB)
Career Insecurity
(CIS)
Standardized
Regression
Coefficient
.14 *
-.08 (NS)
Hypothesis
H1a: Supported
H2a: Not Supported
44
Testing Moderator Relationships
 Multi-group Analysis
 Step 1: Full model fit assessment
 Step 2: Creating groups with a mean split
 Step 3: Obtaining pooled model Chi-square score and
the degrees of freedom
 Step 4: Applying equality constraints to group models
 Step 5: Obtaining constrained model Chi-square
score and the degrees of freedom
 Step 6: Checking for Chi-square difference
significance to detect any group differences
 Step 7: If Chi-square difference is significant between
pooled and constrained models, identifying individual
paths that are significantly different between the
groups.
45
The SEM Results Summary: Moderator
Relationships
Moderator
From
To
K-why
Competency
CB
Cautonomy
NA
H1b: Not Supp.
CB
CInsecurity
NA
H2b: Not Supp.
CB
Cautonomy
NA
H1b: Not Supp.
CB
CInsecurity
NA
H2b:Not Supp.
CB
Cautonomy
NA
H1b: Not Supp.
CB
CInsecurity
NA
H2b:Not Supp.
K-how
Competency
K-whom
Competency
Sig. of
Chi-sq
Difference
Hypothesis
46
The SEM Results Summary:
Intermediary Relationships
From
To
Sig.
Hypothesis
Cautonomy
Career Success
.55***
H1c: Supported
Cinsecurity
Career Success
-.09
H2c: Not Supp.
47
Additional Analyses (CB vs. Career
Autonomy & Career Insecurity-Summary)
Variables
Type (Dimensions)
Career Boundarylessness (composite)
Career Autonomy
Career Insecurity
0.131
0.023
Frequency
0.449**
-0.188
Direction
-0.379**
0.145
Number of Breaks
-0.025
0.236**
Duration of Breaks
-0.010
-0.208*
Type
-0.016
0.080
-0.193*
0.236**
Industry Change
0.048
0.005
Location Change
0.069
-0.225**
Employment Status
-0.051
0.033
0.387**
-0.244**
Occupational Change
Self-employment
*p > .05 ; **p > .01
48
Additional Analyses
Career Competencies Direct Relationships
Summary
Varia bles
Career Autonomy
Career Insecurity
-
Knowing -why Competencies
0.307**
-0.128†
Knowing -how Competencies
0.144†
-0.122
Knowing -whom Competencies
0.114
-0.252**
Internal Kno wing-whom Competencies
-0.045
-0.213**
External Knowing -whom Competencies
0.148*
-0.121†
† p <.10
* p < .05
** p <.01
49
Discussion: Findings
 Direct Relationships

Composite career boundarylessness score predicts career
autonomy but not career insecurity.

Individual dimensions of career boundarylessness predict career
autonomy and career insecurity better than the composite career
boundarylesness score. More specifically:

Frequent inter-organizational moves and self-employment
increase one’s career autonomy,whereas occupational
changes and more conventional lateral and downward mobility
across organizations reduce one’s career autonomy.

While career insecurity is decreased by location changes, selfemployment, and long career breaks, it is increased by
occupational changes and higher number of career breaks.
50
Discussion: Findings
 Intermediary Relationships

The Positive Link:
 Career
autonomy emerges to be an important
variable to explain why career
boundarylessness may lead enhanced career
satisfaction.
 The Negative Link: Not Applicable
51
Discussion: Findings
 Moderator Relationships: Not Supported
 However, additional regression analyses
revealed some support for direct
relationships. More specifically,


Knowing-why, and external knowing-whom
competencies enhance career autonomy.
Internal knowing-whom competencies
reduce career insecurity.
52
Conclusions
 There is a positive relationship between
career boundarylessness and subjective
career success when

Career boundarylessness leads to
enhanced feelings of autonomy one
experiences in his/her career.
53
Conclusions
 Some dimensions of career boundarylessness lead to
enhanced career autonomy.


Frequent moves across organizations
Self-employment.
 Some individuals experience more autonomy in their
careers. These individuals are:



Individuals with extensive understanding of themselves in terms of
career-related motives, needs, abilities, interests, aspirations, and
values.
Individuals with a portfolio of work-related skills, knowledge, and
understanding that are transferable to other employment settings
(e.g., companies, occupations, or industries).
Individuals with a wide network of relationships outside of their
current organization.
54
Conclusions

Some dimensions of career
boundarylessness lead to increased career
insecurity.



Occupational changes,
Higher number of career breaks.
Some individuals experience less career insecurity.
These individuals are:

Individuals with a wide network of relationships (inside and outside
of one’s current organization and industry) that provide information,
support, and guidance to them.
55
Limitations
 Cross-sectional, correlational design
does not permit conclusions regarding
causality.
 Low response rate
 Limited generalizability
 Self-report data

Common Method Variance
56
Contributions

Empirically testing previously offered theoretical assertions
regarding the consequences of experiencing a
boundaryless career from an individual’s point of view.

Developing and testing a model that examines the impact of
career boundarylessness on subjective career success.

Identifying intermediary variables that explain the
relationship between career boundarylessness and
subjective career success.

Developing a continuous measure of career
boundarylessness.
57
Implications
 The study’s results suggest that developing knowing-why,
knowing-how, and knowing-whom competencies are
instrumental for individuals to take full advantage of their
careers. Thus;


For individuals, the successful pursuit of a boundaryless career
requires ongoing effort and investment in simultaneously
developing all these three competencies.
In terms of organizations, they can structure and implement
programs and activities to support the development of these
important competencies. They can offer, for example,



Career services such as self-assessments and career counseling
to help individuals understand themselves better.
Training programs, seminars, and certification programs that
constantly update knowledge and skill bases of their employees.
Mentoring programs and various networking activities in which the
employees can expand their inside and outside of the organization
networks.
58
Suggestions for Future Research
 More in-depth understanding of career
boundarylessness construct and its measure
(e.g., dimensions).
 Studying different populations other than MBA
Alumni to improve the generalizabilty of the
study results.
 Using a longitudinal study design to make
causal inferences regarding the study results.
 Expanding the study to examine the
relationship between career boundarylessness
and work-related attitudes and behaviors (e.g.,
job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and turnover).
59
THANK YOU
60