Graduates' attitudes to and experiences of career ...

This article was downloaded by: [Ingenta Content Distribution (Publishing Technology)] On: 07 October 2014, At: 10:41 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ pewo20

Who's in charge? Graduates' attitudes to and experiences of career management and their relationship with organizational commitment a

b

Jane Sturges , David Guest & KateKenzie Mac Davey

b

a

Open University Business School, Milton Keynes, UK b

Department of Organizational Psychology, Birkbeck College, University of London, UK Published online: 21 Sep 2010.

Downloaded by [Ingenta Content Distribution (Publishing Technology)] at 10:41 07 October 2014

To cite this article: Jane Sturges , David Guest & KateKenzie Mac Davey (2000) Who's in charge? Graduates' attitudes to and experiences of career management and their relationship with organizational commitment, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9:3, 351-370, DOI: 10.1080/135943200417966 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135943200417966

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions


WHO’S IN CHARGE? 351 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 9 (3), 351–370

Who’s in charge? Graduates’ attitudes to and experiences of career management and their relationship with organizational commitment Jane Sturges

Open University Business School, Milton Keynes, UK

David Guest and Kate Mackenzie Davey

Department of Organizational Psychology, Birkbeck College, University of London, UK This article reports the findings of a study of graduates’ expectations and experiences of organizational and individual career management practices and of the relationships between organizational career management, career selfmanagement, and organizational commitment. It finds that, despite the prevailing rhetoric that individuals must take responsibility for their own careers, organizations are still heavily involved in the career management of their graduate recruits. Furthermore, organizational career management makes a positive contribution to graduates’ organizational commitment, whereas most forms of career self-management do little to discourage it. However, graduates appear to benefit from different kinds of career management at different stages in their first 10 years in the organization.

The career management of graduate trainees has become an issue for debate, as the rhetoric of the “new” career endorses the notion that careers are the responsibility of the individual, not the organization (Kanter, 1989). Many graduate recruiters are now explicit, both in recruitment literature and on graduate training programmes, that career management is an individual, rather than an organizational responsibility. Yet how this might be facilitated and its consequences for organizational commitment, motivation, and career satisfaction, are frequently overlooked (Sturges & Guest, 1999). Requests for reprints should be addressed to J. Sturges, Open University Business School, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK. Email: [email protected] We would like to acknowledge the support of the Careers Research Forum in undertaking this work and the help provided by the graduates who participated in the research by completing questionnaires. We also acknowledge the helpful comments of three anonymous reviewers. © 2000 Psychology Press Ltd http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/1359432X.htm l


352

STURGES, GUEST, MACKENZIE DAVEY

In the past, the process of career management in organizations, although never explicitly described in such terms, was shared between the employer and the employee (Orpen, 1994). Traditionally, employers did things to help develop the careers of their staff—organizational career management—such as offering training and development opportunities, establishing mentoring programmes, and instituting personal development plans. Likewise, individuals acted to further their own careers—career self-management—performing activities such as setting career-related goals and devising appropriate strategies to achieve them (Noe, 1996). It is argued that this balance between organizational and individual responsibility for career management has shifted to a position where the onus for managing the career now rests with the individual (e.g., Hall & Mirvis, 1996). Nevertheless, despite the prevailing rhetoric of career self-management, there is little evidence to suggest how and by whom young managers’ careers are actually being managed. Furthermore, it remains unclear what effect, if any, increased practice of career self-management is likely to have on graduates’ commitment to their employer. This is pertinent, because experience of “traditional” organizational career management has been shown to be positively associated with the cultivation of organizational commitment (McGovern, HopeHailey, & Stiles, 1998), especially at the beginning of the career (Keenan & Newton, 1986). This article attempts to elucidate such issues by reporting the findings of a study of graduates in the early years of their careers which examined their experiences of organizational career management and career self-management and the relationship between these experiences and organizational commitment.

THE CHANGING NATURE OF GRADUATE CAREERS

The rhetoric of the “new” career is predicated upon the notion that, in order to remain competitive in a business environment increasingly dominated by globalization and rapid advances in technology, organizations have restructured, delayered, and been through mergers and acquisitions programmes, removing the potential for a hierarchical “career-for-life” for all but a few (Bridges, 1995; Handy, 1989). ‘In particular, the demise of the bureaucratic paradigm and the development of flatter, adaptive organizations have significantly affected the nature of the organizational career for graduate recruits’ (Brown & Scase, 1994). At its most basic level, this rhetoric suggests that organizational careers have ceased to exist. People may still have a job, but they no longer have a career, at least in the traditional sense of the word: “Climbing the corporate ladder is being replaced by hopping from job to job” (Kanter, 1989). At the very least, careers are no longer “bounded” by the organization, but instead have become “portable” (Kanter, 1989), “boundaryless” (Arthur, 1994), or “protean” (Hall & Mirvis,


WHO’S IN CHARGE?

353

1996). The new career is described as portable because an individual’s success depends on the transfer of skills from organization to organization (Kanter, 1989); it is boundaryless, because it can no longer be defined within the confines of one company (Mirvis & Hall, 1994); and it is protean, because it changes shape to accommodate the individual’s personal and work circumstances. The new career is also sometimes depicted in terms of a “new deal”, where the psychological contract that exists between employer and employee has changed to reflect the fact that there is no longer a promise of an expectation of as career for life (Herriot & Pemberton, 1995). Implicit in the idea of the “new” career is the assumption that if organizations can no longer offer individuals a career for life, then nor do they have any responsibility to manage their career for them. As a result, the balance between organizational and individual career management, which is said to have previously existed (Orpen, 1994), has shifted towards a position of self-reliance for the individual (Kanter, 1989). This has led to the development of a subsidiary rhetoric extolling the benefits both for employers and for employees of individuals managing their own careers. Resolutely positive, it liberates the individual from the constraints of the organization to allow them to pursue what they perceive to be their “path with a heart” (Hall & Mirvis, 1996). It remains to be seen, however, how far the complementary notions of the new career and the value of career self-management as an effective substitute for organizational career management are based in fact, since there is as yet little empirical evidence to support their existence. Indeed, the few studies that have attempted to explore the reality of the “new” career have not found evidence for the kind of transformational change that writers such as Handy, Kanter, and Hall suggest has taken place. For example, McGovern et al. (1998), in a study of eight large UK organizations, concluded that, although some changes in career practices and attitudes had taken place, there was no indication of change on the scale proposed in the popular literature. Furthermore, they inferred that in the organizations they studied the concept of career self-management was supported purely by rhetoric, not by practical measures. Guest and Mackenzie Davey (1996), in their study of over 20 large organizations, reached a similar conclusion. Nevertheless, Adamson, Doherty, and Viney (1998) argue that the concept of the “new” career at the very least has influenced organizations’ attitudes to graduate careers. Interestingly, if graduates today do find themselves having to take chief responsibility for managing their careers, this may accord with values prevalent in their generation as identified by another strand of popular literature. Members of the so-called “Generation X” are said to favour increased self-reliance and want to create “self-based” career security (Tulgan, 1996). Amongst other things, this seems to infer a greater practice of career self-management behaviours.

354



THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GRADUATE CAREER MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Graduates traditionally have joined organizations with very high expectations about their future career and the ways in which they anticipate that their employers will help them manage it. In particular, they have expected the organization to provide high quality training and developmental opportunities (Mabey, 1986; Pitcher & Purcell, 1997). Arnold and Mackenzie Davey (1994), for example, found that the most strongly endorsed reasons for joining an organization given by graduates were long-term career prospects and training. Keenen and Newton (1986), in a study of engineering graduates before and after they started work, concluded that the graduates attached a high priority to opportunities for skill development at both points in time. Unfortunately, graduates’ expectations in this regard have often been found to exceed reality, thus posing a threat to the generation of organizational commitment at the start of the career (Mabey, 1986). This is important, because considerable evidence suggests that unmet expectations can have a detrimental effect on levels of organizational commitment (e.g., Wanous, Poland, Premack, & Shannon Davis, 1992). Organizational commitment has been shown to be positively associated with a number of attributes that organizations are likely to want to encourage in their employees, even if they do not wish to offer them a career for life, such as the performance of organizational citizenship behaviours (Carson & Carson, 1998), motivation, and, to a lesser extent, job performance (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Likewise, lack of organizational commitment has been found to have strong links with individuals’ intention to quit their employer (Jaros, 1997). It is agreed that the early years of employment in particular is a significant time for the development of commitment (Louis, 1980), and it is generally accepted that “positive” organizational experiences during this period make a strong contribution to this (Irving & Meyer, 1994). Career development and training activities provided by the organization have been identified as the kind of “positive” experiences that engender organizational commitment during the early years at work (Arnold & Mackenzie Davey, 1999; Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1991). This finding is endorsed by studies which have shown that institutionalized socialization of graduates—of which formal training and development opportunities might reasonably be considered to be a part—is also positively related to the development of organizational commitment (Ashworth & Saks, 1996). If recent graduates share the values of Generation X, and have absorbed the rhetoric of the “new” career, then one would anticipate that they might possess a


WHO’S IN CHARGE?

355

more “realistic” attitude to organizational career management. They are likely to expect less from their employer in terms of career management and will be prepared to do more themselves to manage their own careers. If organizational commitment can be viewed partly as an exchange, then it follows that graduates who engage in career self-management may also be less committed to the organization. Recent studies of graduate careers suggest that young people at least to some extent still subscribe to the traditional “bureaucratic” view of the career, rather than believing that it is entirely their responsibility to manage it (Brown & Scase, 1994). In particular, a high priority appears to continue to be placed on organizational career management in the form of help with continual skills development (Pitcher & Purcell, 1997). Employers therefore run the risk of prejudicing commitment if they place too great an emphasis on individuals managing their own career, especially in its early stages. Thus, the practice of career self-management may reflect endorsement by the individual that their career is not bounded by one organization; it also might function as a substitute for organizational career management help, which they expected to receive from their employer but which did not materialize. Both of these explanations imply that it may be negatively related to organizational commitment: By implication, it is done to benefit the individual, not the organization (Stickland, 1996), and some of the activities that it entails, such as networking, drawing to one’s achievements, and keeping a CV up to date, are as relevant for looking for employment outside the organization, as for promoting a career within (Mirvis & Hall, 1994). The potential relationship between career self-management and low organizational commitment is highlighted by the negative correlation found between intention to leave an organization and commitment (e.g., Carson & Bedeian, 1994). The effects of organizational career management and career self-management on the organizational commitment of graduates seen unlikely to remain constant even during the first years of their careers. Experiences that have particular salience for graduates and for their commitment to the organization will change as they learn and adapt (Buchanan, 1974). Expectations of training and development traditionally have been highest at the start of the career, and are shown to have an important impact on organizational commitment at this stage (Tannenbaum et al., 1991). Furthermore, it is probable that individuals are better able to practise career self-management at a later stage once they have gone through the process of socialization (Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, & Gardner, 1994) and are familiar with the ways in which organizational life operates. Promotion and other extrinsic rewards are also more likely to have a positive effect on commitment later in the career (Gaertner & Nollen, 1989). Sensitivity to ways in which graduates change and therefore to the provision of opportunities

356


for appropriate career management by the organization and by the individual seem likely to have an influence on sustained organizational commitment.


RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS

If one accepts the rhetoric of the “new career”, then graduates today should expect and receive low levels of help in managing their careers from their employers. Conversely, they should expect to be prepared to undertake career self-management. Furthermore, practice of career self-management is likely to detract from organizational commitment, whereas experience of appropriate organizational career management will be associated with higher levels of organizational commitment. This leads to the following research propositions: 1. When they join organizations, graduates employed in large organizations are likely to have realistic expectations of the help with career management they will receive from their employers. 2. When they join organizations, graduates currently employed in large organizations are likely to have a positive attitude to managing their own career and practise a range of career self-management behaviours consonant with this. 3. Experience of organizational career management has a positive effect on graduates’ levels of organizational commitment. 4. Practice of career self-management has a negative effect on graduates’ organizational commitment.

RESEARCH METHODS Sample and procedures

Data were obtained from a sample of graduate managers in the first 10 years of their career, as part of a larger longitudinal study investigating attitudes to the career in the early years at work. The graduates worked for five large UK organizations, four in the private sector and one in the public sector. All of the organizations would be considered to be among the top graduate recruiters in the UK; all emphasize to graduates in their recruitment literature and during the recruitment process that they expect them to take responsibility for managing their career. Each organization was asked to distribute questionnaires to up to 50 graduates or former graduate trainees in each of three cohorts. Given the numbers required, some of the organizations sent questionnaires to all of their graduates in each of the cohorts, whereas others selected 50 from those employed in each of the cohorts. (Unfortunately, it was impossible to get accurate information from all the organizations about exactly how many questionnaires they sent out.) Cohort A consisted of new graduates; cohort B consisted of graduates with approximately 3 years’ work experience; graduates in cohort C had approximately 8 years’ work experience.


WHO’S IN CHARGE?

357

Data were collected in two points in time. At time 1, questionnaires were distributed to cohort A (new graduates) a month before they started work with their employing organizations. At time 2, questionnaires were distributed to all three cohorts six months after cohort A had started work. Organizations 1, 2, 3, and 4 participated in both stages of the study; organization 5 joined the study at time 2. A total of 161 usable questionnaires were received at time one; a total of 434 usable questionnaires were received at time 2. The sample at time 2 consisted of 169 graduates in cohort A (new graduates), 139 graduates in cohort B (3 years’ experience) and 126 graduates in cohort C (8 years’ experience); 119 graduates replied at both time 1 and time 2. (Although the organizations were asked specifically to send questionnaires to the same graduates at both times, they appear to have had some difficulty in doing so, and as a result surveyed some cohort A graduates for the first time at time 2.) The total sample at time 2 consisted of 262 men (60.4 per cent) and 172 women (39.6 per cent) with an average age of 26.64. The graduates worked in a range of managerial functions, including general management, marketing, sales, finance, and technical roles.

Measures

The same measures were used at time 1 and time 2, although the design of the questionnaire was altered at time 1 to reflect the fact that the graduates participating in this stage of the study had not yet started work. Thus, at time 1 the graduates in cohort A were asked about the degree to which they expected to receive different types of career management help from their employer and practise certain career self-management activities once they started work. At time 2 they were asked about their actual career management experiences (over the past 6 months for cohort A and over the past 12 months for cohorts B and C). Organizational career management. The graduates were asked to indicate to what extent they expected to experience (T1) or had experienced (T2) a range of organizational career management interventions. These included being given training to help develop their career, being taught things they needed to know to get on in their organization, being given a mentor, and being given impartial career advice when they needed it. The career management interventions included were chosen to reflect the range of career management practices that contemporary organizations might use (e.g., Arnold, 1997). Responses were on a 5-point scale, which ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Career self-management. The graduates were asked to indicate to what extent they expected to practise (T1) or had practised (T2) a range of career selfmanagement behaviours. These included asking for career advice from people even when it was not offered, taking on extra activities that would look good on


358


their CV, pushing to be involved in high profile projects and making sure that they got credit for the work they did. The items were developed with reference to existing measures of career self-management (e.g., Gould & Penley, 1984; Noe, 1996) and literature that has discussed what this might involve in the context of the “new” career (Stickland, 1996). Responses were on a 5-point scale, which ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 strongly agree. Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment was measured using Cook and Wall’s (1980) nine-item scale. Responses were on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample items included “I am quite proud to tell people who I work for”, “I feel myself to be part of the organization” and “To know my own work had made a contribution to the good of the organization would please me”. The Cronbach alpha obtained for the scale in this study at time 2 was .75. Demographics . Questions relating to the demographic variables of gender, age, functional area of work, and employing organization were included in the questionnaire that the respondents completed.

Analysis

Time 1 and 2 data relating to organizational career management and career selfmanagement practices were analysed separately using principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation. At both times, the entire sample was used to conduct the factor analysis. A decision was taken to use the factor structure derived from the time 2 data for further analysis. This decision was informed by the fact that the time 2 data was derived from a much larger sample of graduates, and the belief that graduates would be less likely to have clear ideas about career management before they started work. Therefore, it was thought that the factors obtained from time 2 data were likely to be more robust. Paired t-tests were conducted using the career management factors identified for a matched sample of the graduates who completed questionnaires both at time 1 and time 2, in order to explore the differences between their pre-joining expectations and intentions relating to career management and their post-joining experiences. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables at time 2 were calculated. Multiple regression analyses were then conducted separately for each of the three cohorts who participated at time 2, in order to examine what career management factors contributed to organizational commitment at different stages of the early career. The regression analyses were conducted by entering the variables in three blocks, control variables first, organizational career management variables second, and career self-management variables third. For the correlation and regression analyses dummy variables

WHO’S IN CHARGE?

359


were used for the control variable of employing organization; organization 2, whose graduates had the highest levels of organizational commitment, was used as a referent for the remaining four organizations in the regression analysis.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

The factor analysis at time 2 indicated that, although organizational career management and career self-management are often discussed as separate but coherent aspects of the career management process, each actually consists of quite distinct dimensions. Two factors for organizational career management were identified: one that related to “formal” practices, such as receiving training and skill development (Cronbach alpha = .80), and one that related to “informal” practices, such as getting career advice and being introduced to the “right” people at work (Cronbach alpha = .80). Individual items and factor loadings are shown in Appendices 1 and 2. (The factors incorporated all items included in the questionnaire; one item, “My boss has introduced me to people who will help my career”, loaded onto both factors. It was included in the “informal” practices factor because it loaded more strongly onto this one and because it was felt that this activity would be considered to be more of an informal than a formal career management practice.) Four discrete aspects of career self-management emerged from the time 2 factor analysis. One factor related to networking activities such as building contacts, getting introduced to influential people and pushing to be involved in high profile projects (Cronbach alpha = .72). The second related to mobilityoriented behaviour, concerned with getting into a position to leave the organization if it would benefit the individual’s career (Cronbach alpha = .80). The third related to individuals’ drawing attention to their achievements at work (Cronbach alpha = .82). The fourth was connected to doing practical things to assist career development, such as keeping a CV up to date, reading work-related journals and books, and getting extra qualifications (Cronbach alpha = .62). Individual items and factor loadings are shown in Appendix 2. (Again the factors incorporated all the items included in the questionnaire. One item, “I have monitored job advertisements to see what is available outside the organization”, loaded onto two factors, mobility-oriented behaviour and doing practical things. It was decided to include it in the doing practical things factor because it loaded more strongly onto this one and seemed more closely related to the other activities represented by this factor, such as keeping a CV up to date.) The paired t-tests conducted on the six factors identified showed that there were significant differences between the graduates’ expectations of organizational career management and of likely career self-management, and the reality which they experienced once they started work, as shown in Table 1. Expectations were significantly higher than actual experience for all items, except


360


“mobility-oriented behaviour”. The differences were greatest for the organizational career management scales. Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations found among the study variables at time 2. The results regarding the participating organizations are illustrated by correlations relating to three of the organizations: organization 2, whose employees demonstrated the highest level of organizational commitment at time 2; organization 3, whose employees had the lowest level of organizational commitment at time 2; and organization 1, whose employees reported the third highest level of organizational commitment at time 2. (Organizations 4 and 5 are omitted from the correlation table because they fall at neither extreme and add little to this particular aspect of the analysis.) The correlations suggest some interesting relationships between the variables. Organizational commitment is strongly correlated with experience of both formal and informal organizational career management practices. However, although there is a negative relationship between organizational commitment and two of the measures of career self-management, namely mobility-oriented behaviour and doing practical things, a third, networking, has a positive relationship with commitment. There appear to be relationships between experience of organizational career management and engagement in certain types of career self-management. For example, there is a positive correlation between formal career management practices and both networking and drawing attention to one’s achievements. On the other hand there is, perhaps not surprisingly, a negative relationship between organizational career management and mobility-oriented behaviour. Although there are positive relationships between most of the career self-management measures, mobility-oriented behaviour is not significantly related to drawing attention to one’s achievements. This may reflect the difference between those TABLE 1 Means, standard deviations, correlations, and paired t-tests comparing expectations at time 1 with experiences at time 2 Variable

Formal practices Informal practices Networking Mobility-oriented behaviour Practical things Attention *p < .05; **p < .01.

N

Time 1

Time 2

Correlation

t-value

M

SD

M

SD

99 95 97

4.45 4.06 3.80

0.35 0.53 0.49

4.00 3.47 3.44

0.65 0.98 0.61

.14 .24* .37**

6.52** 5.72** 5.56**

98 104 109

2.70 3.48 4.03

0.90 0.63 0.78

2.48 3.08 3.70

1.2 0.85 0.81

.08 .33** .15

1.50 4.66** 3.33**

2.69 3.18 3.69 5.62

1.4 26.64 23,285 – – – 3.79 2.76 3.35

M

1

1.2 0.99 0.95 0.83

.08 –.10* .02 .02

0.49 – 3.83 –.18** 8.155 –.19** – –.26** – .04 – .19* 0.83 .08 1.09 .06 0.75 .10*

SD

*p < .05; **p < .01. Alphas are in parenthesis.

Gender Age Salary Organization 1 Organization 2 Organization 3 Formal practices Informal practices Networking Mobility-oriented behaviour 11. Practical things 12. Attention 13. Commitment

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Scale

–.01 .10* .10* –.19**

.61** .22** –.09 –.04 –.22** –.31** –.13**

–

2

.00 .07 .07 .00

.08 .12* –.17** –.19** –.21** –.07

–

3

–.01 .11* –.02 –.08

.02 –.09 –.26**

– – –

4

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

.14** (.80) .30** .43** (.62) .38** .03 .22** (.82) .14** –.51** –.20** .03 (.75)

– .01 –.04 (.80) .88* .01 .63** (.80) .13** .18** .20** .30** (.72)

6

–.10* .16** –.19** –.15** –.11* .19** –.03 .01 –.01 .09 .15** .07 .27** –.19** .40** .38**

– –

5

TABLE 2 Means, standard deviations, Cronbach alphas, and correlations among study variables


WHO’S IN CHARGE?

361

361


362


engaging in career self-management activities designed to further their career either inside or outside their current organization. It is also worth noting, and perhaps reassuring for the participating organizations, that mobility-oriented behaviour had the lowest average score among the career self-management activities. The regression analyses for each cohort of graduates presented in Tables 3 and 4 show that experience of organizational career management and practice of career self-management both appear to be useful in explaining the graduates’ organizational commitment. However, the picture alters a little when we look the effect of specific career management practices. Formal organizational career management practices are only positively related to organizational commitment for the cohorts A and B, with 6 months’ and 3 years’ experience respectively. On the other hand, informal organizational career management practices make a significant contribution to the organizational commitment of the graduates with 8 years’ experience, whereas formal practices do not. Of the career self-management scales, only the “mobility-oriented behaviour” measure has a significant link to organizational commitment, and for each cohort it is a strong negative link. The effect of networking on the commitment of the graduates is generally positive and for graduates with 8 years’ experience falls just outside the range of statistical significance (p = .058). Of the control variables, the organization for which a graduate works appears to have a TABLE 3 Multiple regression analysis with organizational commitment as the dependent variable: Standardized betas after all three blocks entered

Block 1 Gender Age Organization 1 Organization 3 Organization 4 Organization 5 Salary Block 2 Formal practices Informal practices Block 3 Networking Mobility-oriented behaviour Practical things Attention *p < .05; **p < .01.

6 months

3 years

8 years

.064 .121 –.248** –.357** –.101 –.328** –.113

–.110 –.104 –.187 –.280* –.101 –.208* .055

.029 –.257** –.142 –.161 –.066 –.161 .203*

.288** –.037

.257* .088

.120 .219*

.014 –.520** .076 –.098

.182 –.415** –.041 –.029

.164 –.490** –.044 .058

WHO’S IN CHARGE?

363


TABLE 4 Multiple regression analysis with organizational commitment as the dependent variable: R2 values

Block 1: Control variables R2 Change in R2 Block 2: Organizational career management variables R2 Change in R2 Block 3: Career self-management variables R2 Change in R2

6 months

3 years

8 years

.138 .138**

.120 .120

.187 .187**

.207 .069**

.284 .163**

.381 .195**

.426 .219**

.446 .162**

.584 .203**

*p < .05; **p < .01.

particularly strong influence on organizational commitment for those in cohort A (6 months’ work experience), but gradually diminishes thereafter. Age, on the other hand, has a significant negative effect on commitment for the graduates in the 8 years’ cohort (cohort C). In terms of the research propositions posed, therefore, the research findings show that: 1. Graduates employed in large organizations continue to have unmet expectations of the organizational career management they will experience. On the basis of this population, the proposition that they have realistic expectations of the career management help they will receive must be rejected. 2. Graduates employed in large organizations have intentions regarding career self-management that are significantly higher than the career selfmanagement behaviours they actually practise. This partly rejects the second proposition. Prior expectations about career self-management are positive but exceed what the graduates do in practice. 3. Experience of organizational career management has a positive effect on graduates’ organizational commitment. However, the type of organizational career management that has a positive effect on their commitment depends on their career stage. For graduates with 6 months’ and 3 years’ work experience, formal organizational career management practices make a positive contribution to organizational commitment. For graduates with 8 years’ experience, informal organizational career management practices have a positive effect on their commitment. 4. Practice of career self-management does have a negative effect on graduate managers’ organizational commitment, but this is restricted to practices related to

364


mobility-oriented behaviour, which is only one of the four dimensions of career self-management identified.


DISCUSSION

The research findings confirm the findings of Pitcher and Purcell (1997) that graduates still have very high expectations of organizational career management, despite the prevailing rhetoric about the necessity for career self-management. There appear to be significant differences between the level of their expectations in this regard before they start work and their actual experiences (although clearly one cannot be certain that the graduates did not recalibrate what they expected in terms of career-management help once they started work). This study therefore suggests that they are still receiving considerable assistance from their employers with managing their careers. One must conclude that, if graduates do not appear to have changed very much in this regard, then neither do employers, regardless of their claims that they encourage graduates to take responsibility for their own career management. The help that new graduates are most likely to receive from their employer, “formal” career management related to training and skill development, represents the type of positive organizational experiences that Arnold and Mackenzie Davey (1999) have shown to make a contribution to organizational commitment in the first year of the career. Although managing graduate expectations remains an important issue for organizations, there is no indication from this research that they are not doing the kinds of things likely to foster commitment in the very early stages of graduate careers. Graduates’ expectations regarding career self-management before they start work are generally positive, with the exception of mobility-oriented behaviour. However, again what they actually do once they begin work is significantly less than what they say they intend to do. Furthermore, career self-management is seen as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, organizational management of careers. These findings imply that the career management of graduates has changed less than might have been supposed. They also appear to confirm the suggestion that, although graduates accept the importance of career selfmanagement, it may be hard for them to understand or implement career selfmanagement before they comprehend the realities of organizational life (Chao et al., 1994). This conclusion is borne out to some extent by the positive correlations between age and the self-management activities of doing practical things to help one’s career and drawing attention to oneself. Although as yet there has been little research into the reality of career selfmanagement, there has been a tendency to describe it as a single entity, rather than as a number of separate interrelated activities (e.g., Stickland, 1996). The research findings show that this may not be appropriate. What has been described


WHO’S IN CHARGE?

365

as career self-management appears to consist of several different kinds of practice, which have a complex relationship with each other, with organizational career management practices, and with organizational commitment. Whereas some aspects of career self-management are complementary to each other, others are not so closely associated. In particular, there appears to be important differences between practices such as networking, which are primarily aimed at furthering one’s career within an organization, and activities such as doing practical things and especially mobility-oriented behaviour, which may be more related to furthering one’s career outside the organization. There is a similar but less pronounced distinction between the different aspects of organizational career management, shown by the relative effects they have on graduate managers’ organizational commitment at different stages of their career. Graduates’ needs for formal career management, such as training, are highest early on in their career (Meyer, 1997), when experiencing them has the greatest impact on organizational commitment. Later on, by the time they are 8 years into their career, informal career management practices, such as getting career advice and being introduced to the right people at work, have a greater impact on their commitment. This suggests that young managers need different kinds of help with managing their careers at different stages. Practising career self-management does not appear to have the negative effect on organizational commitment that had been predicted, with the exception of mobility-oriented behaviour. Further research is needed to disentangle the causal link between mobility-oriented behaviour and organizational commitment. It is possible that an initial low level of organizational commitment encourages mobility-oriented behaviour, rather than vice versa. Some career selfmanagement activities, such as networking and drawing attention to one’s achievements, seem to have a close relationship with organizational career management experiences. This suggests that experiencing organizational career management may encourage or enable graduates to practise career selfmanagement (although further research is needed to establish firmly this causal link). However, if organizations want to encourage young managers to manage their own careers, perhaps they need to help them to help themselves. Furthermore, there appear to be certain “positive” career self-management activities (for example, networking and drawing attention to one’s achievements) that companies might want to promote, as opposed to others (such as mobilityoriented behaviour), which they presumably would prefer to discourage. Although further research is needed to define more precisely the different aspects of career self-management that exist, making this kind of distinction could help organizations determine which kind of career self-management activities it makes sense to promote. The findings also offer some interesting insights into factors other than career management that have an impact on organizational commitment. Early on, the


366


organization a graduate has joined has an important effect on how committed (or uncommitted) they are. This suggests either that some organizations do not encourage commitment in their recruitment process or that some of the graduates may have settled for “second best” in their choice of an employer, and this realization has an unsettling effect on their commitment at the start of their career. This effect appears to lessen with time, perhaps because the least committed graduates leave the organization. However, although we have evidence of different levels of commitment even prior to starting work, we could detect nothing in the organizations’ recruitment literature and processes to explain this. Further research is needed to gain a better understanding of what appears to be an important relationship between career stage and expectations and experiences of career management. The relationship between career management and organizational commitment could also be explored in more detail by considering differences between the organizations in this regard. Although we have longitudinal data on career management for the new graduates in this study, the analysis of organizational commitment needs to be strengthened through an analysis over time, which will help to establish causal relationships and confirm the links we have implied in these findings.

CONCLUSION

This research raises important policy issues for organizations. The rhetoric of the changing nature of careers, in particular the rhetoric of career self-management, appears to have had less effect on the management of graduate careers in large organizations than might be imagined. Organizations do not seem to be behaving as if they believe that career management is entirely the responsibility of the individual, nor indeed should they do so if they want to secure the commitment of their graduate recruits. Nevertheless, there are particular aspects of career self-management that organizations might wish to encourage their young managers to pursue. Getting young managers to realize the importance for their future career development of activities such as making useful contacts and securing recognition of their achievements could potentially reduce their dependence on the organization for extensive help, once their careers are established. Interestingly, this research intimates that one effective way of doing this may be to give them related assistance, such as career advice or help in building a network. It appears that graduates may have to learn how to undertake career self-management; this may be one role for the organizational career management system. Successful career management of graduates in the future therefore should be based on a partnership between employer and individual. The onus for managing the career should not be befall on the organization or on the graduate, since it appears that both have important and interrelated roles to play in facilitating its development. Responsibility must be shared between both parties, if employee

WHO’S IN CHARGE?

367

commitment for the organization and profitable career development for the individual are to be secured.


REFERENCES

Adamson, S.J., Doherty, N., & Viney, C. (1998). The meanings of career revisited: Implications for theory and practice. British Journal of Management, 9, 251–259. Arnold, J. (1997). Managing careers into the 21st century. London: Paul Chapman. Arnold, J., & Mackenzie Davey, K. (1994). Graduate experiences of organisational career management. International Journal of Career Management, 6(1), 14–18. Arnold, J., & Mackenzie Davey, K. (1999). Graduate work experiences as predictors of organisational commitment: What experiences really matter? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 211–238. Arthur, M.B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A new perspective for organisational enquiry. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 15, 295–306. Ashworth, B., & Saks, A. (1996). Socialisation tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Review, 39(1), 149–178. Bridges, W. (1995). Jobshift. London: Nicholas Brealey. Brown, P., & Scase, R. (1994). Higher education and corporate realities: Class, culture and the decline of graduate careers. London: UCL Press. Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organisational commitment: The socialisation of managers in work organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533–546. Carson, K., & Bedeian, A. (1994). Career commitment: Construction of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 44, 237–262. Carson, K., & Carson, P. (1998). Career commitment, competencies, and citizenships. Journal of Career Assessment, 6(2), 195–208. Chao, G.T., O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Wolf, S., Klein, H.J., & Gardner, P.D. (1994). Organizational socialisation: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730–743. Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measure of trust, organisational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39–52. Gaertner, K.N., & Nollen, S.D. (1989). Career experience, perceptions of employment practices and psychological commitment to the organisation. Human Relations, 42(11), 975–991. Gould, S., & Penley, L.E. (1984). Career strategies and salary progression: A study of their relationship in a municipal bureaucracy. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 34, 244–265. Guest, D., & Mackenzie Davey, K. (1996). Don’t write off the traditional career. People Management, February, 22–25. Hall, D.T., & Mirvis, P.H. (1996). The new protean career: Psychological success and the path with a heart. In D.T. Hall (Ed.), The Career is dead—long live the career. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Handy, D. (1989). The age of unreason. London: Arrow Books. Herriot, P., & Pemberton, C. (1995). New deals: The revolution in managerial careers. Chichester, UK: John Wiley. Irving, G., & Meyer, J., (1994). Re-examination of the met expectations hypothesis: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 937–949. Jaros, S. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of organisational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 51, 319–337. Kanter, R.M. (1989). When giants learn to dance. London: Simon & Schuster. Keenan, A., & Newton, T. (1986). Work aspirations and experiences of young graduate engineers . Journal of Management Studies, 23, 224–237.


368


Louis, M.R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organisational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251. Mabey, C. (1986). Graduates into industry. Aldershot, UK: Gower. Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organisational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194. McGovern, P., Hope-Hailey, V., & Stiles, P. (1998). The managerial career after downsizing: Case studies from the “Leading Edge”. Work, Employment and Society, 12(3), 457–477. Meyer, J.P. (1997). Organizational commitment. In C.L. Cooper & L.T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 12. Chichester, UK: John Wiley. Mirvis, P.H., & Hall, D.T. (1994). Psychological success and the boundaryless career. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 15, 365–380. Noe, R.A. (1996). Is career management related to employee development and performance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 17, 119–133. Orpen, C. (1994). The effects of organisational and individual career management on career success. International Journal of Manpower, 15(1), 27–37. Pitcher, J., & Purcell, K. (1997). Graduate expectations. Warwick, UK: Institute of Employment Research. Stickland, R. (1996). Career self-management —can we live without it? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 583–596. Sturges, J., & Guest, D. (1999). Should I stay or should I go? Warwick, UK: Association of Graduate Recruiters. Tannenbaum, S., Mathieu, J., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (1991). Meeting trainees’ expectations: The influence of training fulfilment on the development of commitment, selfefficacy and motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 759–769. Tulgan, B. (1996). Managing generation X: How to bring out the best in young talent. Oxford, UK: Capstone Publishing. Wanous, J.P., Poland, T.D., Premack, S.L., & Shannon Davis, K. (1992). The effects of met expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviours: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 288–297. Manuscript received December 1999 Revised manuscript received April 2000

WHO’S IN CHARGE?

369

APPENDICES: ROTATED COMPONENT MATRICES SHOWING FACTOR LOADINGS


1. Organizational career management items Factor 1: Formal practices

I have been given training to help develop my career My boss has made sure I get the training I need for my career I have been taught things I need to know to get on in this organization I have been given a personal development plan I have been given work that has developed my skills for the future My boss has given me clear feedback on my performance I have been given impartial career advice when I needed it I have been introduced to people at work who are prepared to help me develop my career I have been given a mentor to help my career development My boss has introduced me to people who will help my career

Factor 2: Informal Practices

.746

.141

.737

.326

.696 .642

.326 .228

.605

.095

.588

.237

.184

.807

.354

.783

.144

.766

.503

.584

370


2. Career self-management items


Factor 1: Networking

I have got myself introduced to people who can influence my career I have talked to senior management at company social gatherings I have built contacts with people in areas where I would like to work I have pushed to be involved in high profile projects I have asked for career advice from people even when it has not been offered I have asked for feedback on my performance when it was not given I have refused to accept a new role because it would not help me develop new skills I have made plans to leave this organization once I have the skills and experience to move on I have made plans to leave this organization if it cannot offer me a rewarding career I have kept my CV up to date I have monitored job advertisement s to see what is available outside the organization I have read work-related journals and books in my spare time I have looked outside the organization for career-related training or qualifications I have taken on extra activities which will look good on my CV I have made sure I get credit for the work I do I have made my boss aware of my accomplishments .466

Factor 2: Mobilityoriented behaviour

Factor 3: Practical things

Factor 4: Drawing attention

.778

–.116

.139

.149

.696

–.203

.073

.059

.668

.005

.204

.102

.559

.124

–.046

.269

.554

.126

.095

–.094

.450

.288

.064

.235

.420

.337

.098

–.094

.007

.848

.144

–.020

.058 .012

.812 .158

.272 .667

.020 –.072

–.072

.425

.624

.112

.202

–.143

.622

–.050

.231

.167

.550

.089

.044

.215

.466

.300

.164

.027

.055

.881

.245 .300

–.081

.136

.851