xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001681156
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 051012s2005 flu sbm s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001041
An empirical investigation of the predictors of self- and other reported marketability
h [electronic resource] :
b looking beyond human capital /
by Rachel Day.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 114 pages.
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to propose and test a comprehensive model ofmarketability using both individual and situational predictors. Participants in thisstudy were members of professional associations and were recruited from internetlistserves. They consisted of 485 employees and 176 co-workers. This study used amatching technique to link participant and co-worker data and was the first study toassess multiple perspectives of marketability. Results demonstrated the relationshipsof human capital variables, positivity traits, proactive career behaviors, thenvironment and industry characteristics on internal and external marketability.Interestingly, not all predictors related to both internal and external marketabilityuniformly, suggesting that the two constructs may have different consequences.
Adviser: Tammy D. Allen, Ph.D.
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
An Empirical Investigation of the Predictors of Selfand Other Reported Marketability: Looking Beyond Human Capital by Rachel Day A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Tammy D. Allen, Ph.D. Judith B. Bryant, Ph.D. Marc S. Karver, Ph.D. Carnot E. Nelson, Ph.D. Kristen Salomon, Ph.D. Date of Approval: January 12, 2005 Keywords: marketable, career development, employability, networking, corporate reputation, age. Copyright 2005, Rachel Day
i Table of Contents List of Tables............................................................................................................iii List of Fi gures..........................................................................................................iv Abstract.....................................................................................................................v Introduction...............................................................................................................1 Conceptual Model of Market ability.....................................................................4 Individual Characteristics....................................................................................6 Human Capital...............................................................................................6 Education................................................................................................7 Age.........................................................................................................9 Positivity Traits.............................................................................................11 Optimism...............................................................................................11 Positive Self-Concept............................................................................13 Goal Orientation....................................................................................14 Proactive Career Behaviors...........................................................................15 Networking Behavior.............................................................................16 Voluntary Participation in Development................................................18 Job Mobility Preparedness.....................................................................19 Situational Characteristics..................................................................................20 Career Developm ent Environment................................................................20 Mentorship.............................................................................................21 Career Encouragement...........................................................................23 Industry Char acteristics.................................................................................25 Corporate Reputation and Per ceived Organizational Prestige................25 Summary of Hypotheses.....................................................................................28 Method.....................................................................................................................30 Participants.........................................................................................................30 Procedure............................................................................................................31 Sample Attrition..................................................................................................32 Measures.............................................................................................................34 Results......................................................................................................................43 Self-and Other Ratings of Intern al and External Marketability...........................43 Human Capital....................................................................................................43 Positivity Traits...................................................................................................47 Proactive Career Behaviors.................................................................................48 Career Developmen t Environment......................................................................49
ii Industry Char acteristics......................................................................................50 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses........................................................51 Self-Reported Inte rnal Market ability.............................................................55 Self-Reported Exte rnal Market ability............................................................56 Discussion................................................................................................................58 Self and Other Reported Internal and External Marketability.............................57 Human Capital....................................................................................................57 Positivity Traits...................................................................................................60 Proactive Career Behaviors.................................................................................62 Career Developmen t Environment......................................................................64 Industry Char acteristics......................................................................................67 Regression Analyses...........................................................................................68 Self-reported Marketability...........................................................................68 Co-worker Reported Marketability................................................................71 Theoretical Im plicati ons.....................................................................................72 Applied Implications...........................................................................................73 Limitations and Fu ture Research.........................................................................75 Conclusion..........................................................................................................79 References................................................................................................................80 Appendices...............................................................................................................92 Appendix A: Professional Inte rnet Listserves Solicited......................................93 Appendix B: Top 15 Most Common College or Graduate School Majors Reported............................................................................................94 Appendix C: Top 15 Most Co mmon Job Title s Reported...................................95 Appendix D: Initial Email Solicitation................................................................96 Appendix E: Informed Consent on First Page of Web Survey............................97 Appendix F: ParticipantÂ’s Invitatio n Instructions for the Co-worker on the Final Page of the Survey.....................................................................98 Appendix G: Participant Survey Scale Items....................................................100 Appendix H: Co-worker Survey Scale Items....................................................106 Appendix I: Internal and External Marketability Factor Loadings for Participant Sample.................................................................................107 Appendix J: Internal and External Marketability Factor Loadings for Co-worker Sample.................................................................................108 About the Author...........................................................................................End Page
iii List of Tables Table 1 Descriptive Statistic s of Study Variables...........................................44 Table 2 Correlations Among Study Variables.................................................45 Table 3 Results of Regression Analyses on Self-Reported Internal and External Marketability.................................................................53 Table 4 Results of Regression Analyses on Co-worker Reported Internal and Exte rnal Mark etability...................................................54
iv List of Figures Figure 1. Conceptual Model of th e Theoretical Predictors of Marketability.......................................................................................7
v An Empirical Investigation of th e Predictors of Selfand Other Reported Marketability: Looking Beyond Human Capital Rachel Day ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to pr opose and test a comprehensive model of marketability using both individual and situa tional predictors. Participants in this study were members of professional associa tions and were recruited from internet listserves. They consisted of 485 employees and 176 co-workers. This study used a matching technique to link participant and co-worker data and was the first study to assess multiple perspectives of marketability. Results dem onstrated the relationships of human capital variables, positivity traits, proactive career behaviors, the environment and industry characteristics on internal and external marketability. Interestingly, not all predictors related to both internal and ex ternal marketability uniformly, suggesting that the two constructs may have different consequences. The study also highlighted the importance of pr oactive career development behaviors such as networking and provided practical sugges tions for individuals interested in their marketability. Theoretical implications an d directions for future research are presented.
1 Introduction Over the last two decades, organizations have experienced dynamic changes that have resulted in widespread job loss (Wanberg, 1995). Greater global competition, technological advances, and uncertain economics are responsible for much of the volatility observed in todayÂ’s co mpanies. Jobs are no longer stable; they are constantly adapting to meet changi ng demands (Hall, 1996; Howard, 1995). Because of these changes, wh at employees and employers wa nt and expect from each other, has also been altered (Rousseau, 1995). One of the main pressures felt by employees today is reduced job security. In the past, employers provided employees with suitable jobs with regular advancemen t opportunities, rewarded loyal employees with promotions, provided benefits and invested money into their development knowing that the new skills acquired by employees woul d not be promptly lost to other companies (Hall & Mirvis, 1995; H iltrop, 1995). The work er was essentially guaranteed a job by his employer until retirem ent. The employer in turn acquired a stable work force for business continuity and managerial succession. Today, both employers and employees have lower expectations for long-term employment, employees are responsible for their own career development, and they are less committed to their organization than in the past (Cavanaugh & No e, 1999; Mirvis & Hall, 1996). In fact, many employees have shifted the focus of their commitment
2 from their companies to their professions, causing them to be more reliant on their marketability regardless of the firm in which they work. To stay viable, individuals need to c oncentrate on the factors that make them marketable. To sustain a competitive adva ntage, firms desire individuals who can provide them with unique, value-added characteristics (Lyau & Pucel, 1995). Research maintains that highly marketable individuals fare well in times of job uncertainty, but the question that remain s unanswered is precisely what factors contribute to oneÂ’s marketab ility? In other words, what characteristics and behaviors enable individuals to market themselves for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining rewarding employment? Althoug h much of the focus on job attainment has traditionally focused on human capital, recent research suggests that factors such as personality and social capital play an equally important role in marketing oneself (Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, 2003; Forret & D ougherty, 2001). Consequently, it is important to understand the traits that are associ ated with perceptions of marketability as well as the associated be haviors. Although ex ceptionally pertinent today, these issues have not been addresse d comprehensively in prior research. One exception is Eby et al.Â’s (2003) recent st udy assessing predictors of success in the boundaryless career. In their study, the authors demonstrated marketabilityÂ’s relationship with proactive personality, openness to experien ce, career insight, networking, job-related skills and career id entity. Seemingly the first to explicitly study predictors of marketabilit y, Eby et al.Â’s (2003) study calls for the exploration of additional predictors. The current study seek s to answer that call as well as address some of the weaknesses found in past work in this area. For instance, it is important
3 to assess marketability perceptions in older workers as they have been found to have greater difficulties finding work and often face negative st ereotypes concerning their employability (Mirvis & Hall, 1996; Prussi a, Fugate & Kinick i, 2001; Vinokur & Schul, 2002). However, this relationship could not be asse ssed in Eby et alÂ’s study because they sampled recent graduates. Over ninety-five percent of their sample was under the age of 40 years. The main goal of this study was to pr opose and test the most comprehensive set of theoretical predictors of marketabil ity to date that includes both individual and situational factors. In doing so, prior literature on hum an and social capital, job loss and employability, personality and career development were integrated. Furthermore, an attempt was made to specif ically identify the factors that contribute to an individualÂ’s self-perception of market ability, that is, the confidence that one can obtain a desirable job if attempted. A second goal of this study was to explore multiple perspectives of marketability. To date, investigation in this area has implied that self-reported marketability is associated with the benefits th at accompany objective marketability such as possessing a competitive advantage over others and providing more value to employers (Eby et al, 2003). Self-reported marketab ility is also thought to be one indicator of career success (Arthur & R ousseau, 1996; Eby et al.). Although selfreported perceptions of marketability may provi de true indications of an individualÂ’s standing, assessing both self-perceptions and co -worker perceptions of marketability is worthwhile as it provides an additional viewpoint. Co-workers who know the employee well and who work closely with the employee should be able to offer insight into the employeeÂ’s degree of market ability. It is also important to assess
4 alternative ratings of the dependent va riable to reduce the effects of common method variance. It is possible that co-w orkers possess different perspectives than the employee concerning the factors that make a person marketable. For example, co-workers may have a tendency to rate individuals who are hi gh in human capital as high in marketability. Conversely, th e employee, having more information at his/her disposal, may rely on additional factor s, such as size of network of contacts, to determine his or her ratings of marketability. It is of interest to discover if such rating patterns exist and how the pattern s may differ between co-worker and selfratings. In this study, two differe nt indicators of market ability are considered: internal the extent that one is viewed as ma rketable within oneÂ’s own company, and external the extent that one is marketable to organizations outside oneÂ’s current job. These variables will be assessed by the in dividual, and one other individual who he or she works closely with. This individua l could be a co-worke r or supervisor. Conceptual Model of Marketability Besides providing value to oneÂ’s present employer and evidencing competitiveness to outside organizations, being marketable is advantageous especially in light of the current economyÂ’s adverse effects on the job market. Most prevalent in the 1980s and early 1990s, but still a major concern today, people are feeling the threats of downsi zing, corporate mergers, buyo uts and layoffs where there was once stability and predicta bility. Among unemp loyed individuals, those who are optimistic about their future employability have been found to have greater
5 psychological health and life satisfaction th an then those with less optimism towards finding work (Morrison, OÂ’Co nnor, Morrison, & Hill, 2001). Many have provided advice as to how to encourage unemployed workers to maintain a motivated job s earch and to increase thei r marketability (London, 1990; Wanberg, 1997; Wolf, L ondon, Casey & Pufahl, 1995). However, both research and practice in this area have traditionally been directed toward employees that already have been involuntarily terminated. Little research attention has been focused on perceptions of future marketability in workers that are still employed. What influences those employees to have pos itive or negative attitudes regarding their marketability? What is it that contributes to the confidence that one can find another job, if needed? These questions are especi ally important for those in environments where the threat of lay-offs is traditi onally high (e.g., air line industry, defense industry). Workers must consider their ch ances for reemployment if they work in environments plagued with uncertainty (W aterman, Waterman, & Collard, 1994). It is crucial that employees in these environm ents not only be perpetually prepared for job transitions, have a plan in case of involuntary unemployment, but also keep positive attitudes concerning their future employability. Consequently, as jobs become less stable, individuals who ar e capable of providing value to their present employer and are marketable to outside organizations will be perceived as more successful than those who are not (Bird, 1994; Eby, et al.2003). The hypothesized framework of variables related to marketability is displayed in Figure 1. As can be s een, there are five main categor ies of theoretical predictors that are grouped into individual characteris tics and situational characteristics. Next,
6 each category of predictors is discussed in the order of greatest proposed influence on marketability. Individual Characteristics Traditionally, it is the individual characteristics of a person, such as age or experience, that are thought to make him or her marketable In this section a more comprehensive approach to individual pred ictors of marketability is presented that includes human capital, positivity traits and proactive career behaviors. Human Capital Assets that an individual brings to an organization such as age, education, prior job training, and professional experi ence are collectively known as human capital (Becker, 1993). These factors are known to influence career advancement and increase an individualÂ’s worth to an em ployer (Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995; Prussia et al., 2001). Those who invest significantl y in their human capital are viewed as more competitive an d are more likely to be rewa rded in terms of pay and promotion (Bartel, 1995; Becker, 1993; Black & Lynch, 1996; Jaskolka, Beyer & Trice, 1985). The human capital variables of most interest in the present study are age and education given that past research has demonstrated their relationship to career success, as well as th eir ability to predict confiden ce and reemployment in the case of job loss (Hurley & Sonnenfeld, 1998; Prussia et al, 2001). As in past organizational research, greater education in addition to you th signified high levels of human capital (Malos & Ca mpion, 1995; Prussia et al., 2001; Tan, Cheatle, Mackin, Moberg, & Esterhai, 1997).
7 Education. Both career advancement and la bor economic research have provided an abundance of st udies exhibiting a consistent, robust relationship between educational attainment and career attainme nt (see Becker, 1993) In a study of predictors of executive career success, Judge and his colleagues found that not only did education level (quantity) predict fi nancial success, but education quality, assessed by college ratings, also demonstrat ed substantial relationships with salary (Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bret z, 1995). In terms of jo b attainment, less educated workers have more difficulty finding work and becoming reemployed after job loss (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). Research has also found that less educated workers tend to seek reemployment to a less exte nt, remain unemployed longer and are less likely to achieve reemployment than thei r more educated counterparts (Kanfer & Hulin, 1985; Podgursky & Swaim, 1987; Wanberg, Watt, & Rumsey, 1996). Considering these findings from the career success and employment literatures, it is likely that individuals who have attained high levels of education will be more marketable than those who have attained less education. In making self-ratings of marketability, employees are predicted to take into account their education level and education quality. Co-workers are less lik ely to weigh education when assessing marketability and less likely to be familia r with, and therefore consider, education when making ratings. Therefor e, the following is proposed: Hypothesis 1: Education is positively rela ted to self-reported employee internal and external marketability.
8INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS Human Capital Age (-) Education Positivity Traits Optimism Positive Self-Concept Learning Goal Orientation Proactive Career Behaviors Networking Participation in DevelopmentSelf-Assesse d Internal and External Marketablity Job Mobility PreparednessCo-worker-Assessed Internal and External Marketability SITUATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Career Development Environment Having a Mentor Career Encouragement at Work Non-work Career Support Developmental Resourses Available Industry Characteristics Organizational Prestige Corporate Reputation Figure 1. Conceptual model of the theoretical predictors of marketability. MARKETABILITY
9 Age There are several reasons to believe that older workers may be perceived by others to and ha ve lower self-perceptions of marketability. Based on human capital theory, participation in training and development is thought to decline with age because individuals believe that there is less return on investment (Becker, 1993). Not being up-to-date on aspect s of oneÂ’s job should have di rect negative effects on marketability. Another approach to gaugi ng the effect that age may have on marketability is to look at the employment literature. Re search has also shown that older displaced workers who desire to work, have lower job seeking rates, spend more time unemployed and are reemployed to a less extent than younger workers (Brenner & Bartell, 1983; Prussia et al., 2001; Vinokur & Schul, 2002; Warr & Jackson, 1984). Although there is a va st array of literature concerning the plight of the older worker (e.g., Dennis, 1988; Greller & Nee, 1990), there are still many unanswered questions as to helping them manage their career s and remain marketable. Some have suggested that changing career management policies by paying more attention to career maintenance and career renewal is one solution to managing older workersÂ’ careers (Rosen & Jerdee, 1988). However, ol der workers are often forced into early retirement rather than helped through th e job change process (Bailey & Hansson, 1995; London, 1996). Stereotypes about older workers are rampant in organizations and can sometimes undermine careers of senior em ployees. In a study meta-analytically examining age discrimination in simulate d employment contexts, younger workers were consistently given higher ratings th an were older workers in terms of job
10 qualifications and potential for development. Younger raters consistently gave lower employment ratings to older workers when they were not provided with job-relevant information about the workers and when th ey were asked to rate old and young workers concurrently ( Finkelstein, Burke, & Raju, 1995). If employers believe that older worker s are less capable of learning new skills, more resistant to change, and unable to keep up with the workload, they are less likely to commit training dollars to what is per ceived to be poor return on investment (Dennis, 1988; Rosen & Jerdee, 1988). To illustrate, Chiu, Chan, Snape, and Redman (2001) discovered that when employees perceived older workers as being unable to adapt to change, they were al so more likely to have negati ve views regarding training, promoting, retaining and wo rking with older employees. Furthermore, if older workers themselves internalize such ster eotypes, they can b ecome self-fulfilling prophecies, and reinforce any age stereotype s that may be held by their employer (Bailey & Hansson, 1995; Mirvis & Hall, 1996; Stagner, 1985). Negative outcomes such as these can lower resilience and de crease self-confidence in older workers triggering them to have doubts regarding th eir marketability (Londo n, 1990). In this study, it is hypothesized that older participants will have lower perceptions of marketability than will younger participants Preliminary support for this hypothesis has been f ound in a study of job sear ch behavior of employed managers (Bretz, Boudreau, & Judge, 1994). When surveyed about their perceived alternative employment opportunities, older workers were more likely than were their younger counterparts to respond that they had fewer alternatives. Similarly, in a study of professional expertise, a negative relationship between age and self-assessed
11 employability was found in a sample of middle and higher level employees (Van der Heijden, 2002). The follo wing are expected. Hypothesis 2a: Age is negatively related to self-reported internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 2b: Age is negatively related to co-worker-reported internal and external marketability. Positivity Traits Possessing a positive outlook on life and a pproaching tasks with ambitions to learn and improve upon oneself are factors that are expected to rela te to marketability. Specifically, individuals high in optimism, positive self-c oncept and goal orientation are hypothesized to be more marketable than those who are low on these traits. Optimism. The positive psychology movement spearheaded by Martin Seligman argues that psychological research needs to redirect its preoccupation with studying sickness and adversities and create a science of happiness. This trend towards positive psychology has recently extended into the wo rkplace and has stimulated a host of Â‘happyproductive workerÂ’ studies (Cropanzano & Wright, 1999, 2001; Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994; Wright & Staw, 1999). Nevertheless, positive psychology research in the workplace is still uncultivated and thus calls c ontinue to be made for additional research in positive organizational behavior (L ounsbury, Loveland, & Gibson, 2002; Luthans, 2002; Turner, Barling, & Zacharatos, 2002). Research on optimism consistently has shown relationships with psychological and physical well being, copi ng, and attribution styles and has been found to be distinguishable from other seemingly similar va riables such as neuroticism, anxiety, self-
12 mastery (locus of control) and self-est eem (see Scheier & Carver, 1992, and Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994 for reviews). Dispos itional optimism has al so received attention in organizational behavior, specifically in re search concerning reemployment. Optimistic individuals generally expect that good things will happe n (Scheier & Carver, 1985). They are more likely than are pessimists to believe that their unfavorable circumstances will improve in the future. Consequently, it is reasonable to infer that optimistic employees will have greater perceptions of their own marketability than will those who are less optimistic. This notion was suppor ted in a longitudinal study of laid-off industrial workers, whereby dispositional optim ism was related to perceived prospects for future employment (Leana & Feldman, 1995). Research is still needed to examin e the relationship between optimism and marketability in a sample of working indivi duals not immediately threatened with job loss. In the current study, the relationsh ip between optimism and marketability is expected to relate to both self-reported marketability and co -worker ratings of marketability. Optimistic employees are likely to believe that they can obtain a desirable job if attempted because this belief characte rizes optimism. A relationship is expected for co-worker ratings as well because conf idence and optimism exuded by employees is likely to be detected by others and hence in fluence perceptions of marketability. Hypothesis 3a: Optimism is positively related to self-reports of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 3b: Optimism is positively related to co-worker reports of internal and external marketability.
13 Positive self-concept. It has been suggested that a positive self-concept is key to finding employment (London & Noe, 1997). Acco rding to Judge, Erez, and Bono (1998) positive self-concept is a higher order trait indicated by four well-established traits in the personality literature: self-e steem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and (low) neuroticism or emotional stability. The four traits are strongly corre lated and consistently have been found to comprise one common fact or referred to as positive self-concept or the core self-evaluations. Unlike optimism th at involves feelings a bout external events, positive self-concept is concerne d with feelings about oneself Judge and his colleagues argue that this higher order tr ait Â“is a basic, fundamental a ppraisal of oneÂ’s worthiness, effectiveness and capability as a personÂ” (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003, p. 304). Recent research has shown that the positive self-concept trait is correlated with job satisfaction, job performance, life satisf action, motivation and that employees with greater positive self-evaluations attain more challenging jobs than those with less positive self-evaluations (Erez & J udge, 2001; Judge et al., 2003; Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000). Many studies have examined the four compone nts of positive self-conc ept separately and have found links with marketability. For instance, anxiety, the major component of neuroticism, has been shown to have negative effects on perceived marketability and the subsequent reemployment of laid-off individuals (Leana & Feldman, 1995). Likewise, job loss literature has demonstr ated that locus of control, self-esteem and self-efficacy each play a role in predicting reemployme nt status (Vinokur & Schul, 2002; Wanber, Kanfer & Rotundo, 1999; Waters & Moore, 2002). No study to date has examined all four positive self-concept variables or the higher order trait core self-evaluations in relation to marketability. It is likely that well-adjusted individuals, who believe in their
14 own agency, have high levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy will have positive perceptions of their marketability. Positive self-concept is expected to relate to coworker reports of marketability since behavi ors associated with positive self-concept are likely to be observable to others. Hypothesis 4a: Positive self-concept is positively related to self-reports of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 4b: Positive self-concept is positively related to co-worker reports of internal and external marketability. Goal orientation. According to Dweck and her co lleagues, (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot, & Dweck, 1988) goal orientation describe s the type of goal individuals pursue when they approach a task. When a task is viewed with a learning goal orientation, individuals s eek to gain knowledge of so mething new and strive to increase their competence and mastery in the activity. Consequently, they are motivated by challenge and choose to exert effort and pers ist on difficult tasks. They compare their current performance to their past performance instead of evaluating themselves to their peers. They view their mistak es, not as failures, but as indi cators that more effort should be applied. As a result, lear ning goal orientation also prom pts a person to believe that skills can be readily improved. Conversely, performance goal orientation is characterized by a need to display competence and gain positive evaluations from others. Learning goal orientation has been s uggested to predict participation and persistence in development activities (L ondon & Maurer, 2003; Maurer, 2002), and has been related to learning self-efficacy (Pot osky & Ramakrishna, 2002) and performance (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; VandeWa lle, Brown, Cron & Slocum, 1999). As
15 discussed, to stay marketable, employees n eed to take control of their careers by mastering new technologies and competencies. Goal orientation theory suggests that learning goal orientation, may be associated with employab ility. Due to learning goaloriented individualsÂ’ persistence in their pur suit mastery and thei r greater likelihood of achievement, they are more likely to be percei ved as marketable. They are also expected to be more proficient at keep ing their skills current. Co-workers are also likely to take learning goal orientation in to considerati on when making assessments of an employeeÂ’s marketability. The behaviors associated with learning goal orientat ion (e.g., persisting on difficult tasks) and the products of goal orie ntation e.g., job performance, are directly observable. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 5a: Learning goal orientation is positive ly related to self reports of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 5b: Learning goal orientation is positive ly related to co-worker reports of internal and external marketability. Proactive Career Behaviors The recent evolution of the career into a dynamic, boundaryless entity has compelled individuals to take proactive st ances concerning the management of their careers and commitment to their professions (Rousseau, 1995). Proactive behaviors such as engaging in career planning, learning new skills, seeking information and advice from others and networking are all purported to increase individualsÂ’ employability, reputation, and value in the marketplace (Claes & Ruiz-Q uintanilla, 1998; Crant, 2000). Although research exists showing a relatio nship between having a proactive personality and indicators of career success and marketabil ity (Eby, et al., 2003; Seibert, Crant, &
16 Kraimer, 1999), research examining the rela tionships among speci fic proactive career behaviors and marketability is lack ing. The present study expl ores networking behavior, voluntary participation in development and j ob mobility preparedness as predictors of marketability. Networking behavior. In their description of the new boundaryless career era, Arthur and Rousseau (1996) stress the impor tance of networking. Since the burden of responsibility for managing oneÂ’s career has shifted gradually from the organization to the individual, careers researchers have continuously advised the use of networking as one method empl oyees can use to stay successful in todayÂ’s volatile times (Hall & Mirvis, 1996). Networking is defined as Â“individualsÂ’ attempts to develop and maintain relationships with others who have the potential to assi st them with their work or careerÂ” (Forret & Dougherty, p. 284) A personÂ’s network is defined as the pattern of ties linking a defined set of individuals. Also referred to as social capital, involvement in networking has been related to beneficial career outcomes such as inco me and promotions (Michael & Yukl, 1993) and to access to information ab out job openings (Granovetter 1982). Furthermore, in a study comparing successful and non successful managers successful mangers spent seventy percent more time networking than did less successful managers (Luthans, Hodgetts, Rosenkrantz, 1988). In reviewing literature on social capital theory and career success, Seibert, Kraimer and Liden (2001) credit greater access to information, resources and sponsorship as th e key explanatory variables for the effect of social capital on career mobility.
17 In their study examining predictors of success in the bound aryless career, Eby et al. (2003) found that the extent of oneÂ’s networks within and outside oneÂ’s organization was related to self-perceptions of internal and extern al marketability in a working sample. Because their sample was homogeneous with respect to age, education and race, this study addresses the need to test networkingÂ’s effects on marketability on a more diverse sample. In addition, this research will extend previous research by exploring the role of networking with individuals at higher organizational levels and individuals out side the subjectÂ’s functional area. Networking with such contacts has been shown to increase a personÂ’s access to information and resources and thus should also serve to enhance oneÂ’s marketability (Seibert, et al, 2001). As in Eby et alÂ’s study, both in ternal and external networking are predicted to relate to internal and external marketability. Although internal networking may be a better predictor of internal marketability, and external networking a better predictor of external networking, both types of activities should yield career benefits in and outside of one s workplace. A co-worker is less likely to consider networking behavior when produci ng marketability ratings since co-workers are less likely to recognize and appreciate the extent of their colleaguesÂ’ networking behaviors. Thus, no relationship is e xpected between networking and co-worker assessments of marketability. Hypothesis 6a: Internal networking behavior will positively relate to selfassessments of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 6b: External networking behavior will positively relate to selfassessments of internal and external marketability.
18 Hypothesis 6c: The number of contacts in othe r functions in a network will positively relate to self assessments of internal and exte rnal marketability. Hypothesis 6d: The number of contacts at hi gher organizational levels will positivity relate to self assessments of internal and external marketability. Voluntary participation in development. Engaging in learning and development activities to improve oneÂ’s career is pr obably more important now than ever. Organizations are changing rapidly due to increased competition and technological developments. Continuous learning is one method employees can use to avoid getting left behind. Continuous learni ng is a process whereby knowledge skills and abilities are obtained throughout oneÂ’s career in reaction to, and in anticipation of changing performance requirements. The goal of this learning may be to improve performance on oneÂ’s current job, to sharpen skills needed in future jobs, or to prepare for career opportunities inside or outside the orga nization (London & Mone, 1999). Development activities include, but are not limited to, on the job training, seminars, work related college courses, computer-based learning programs and learning from those more experienced, like mentors. Voluntary employ ee development activities are those learning experiences that are not mandated by th e organization (Maurer & Tarulli, 1994). The benefits to participat ion are ample and involve a sense of achievement and self-satisfaction, employment stability and career advancement. In the current study, participation in development is emphasized as a way to prepare for future employment. London and Mone (1999) suggest that employees who engage in continuous learning are more valuable during downsizings and as a resu lt have greater marketability. In addition, at a time of job loss, those who have not engaged in continuous development may be
19 more prone to experience negative conseque nces such as depression and anger (London & Mone, 1999). Thus it seems feasible that those who voluntarily participate in development while on the job, are more likely to have confidence that they can obtain reemployment in the case of job loss. In the present study, participat ion in development is exp ected to relate to self perceptions and co-worker perceptions of mark etability. Naturally, the employee will be more familiar with his/her developmental experi ences especially if they take place away from the workplace. However, co-workers are likely to be aware of developmental behaviors that occur at work and are expected to take such activities into account when rating the employeesÂ’ internal and external marketability. Moreover, such behaviors often result in improved performance and in creased skills on the job (Noe, 1999) which are be directly observable to others. Th erefore, the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 7a: There will be a positive relationship between voluntary participation in development activities and self-reported internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 7b: There will be a positive relationship between voluntary participation in development activities and co-worker-reported internal and external marketability. Job Mobility Preparedness. Career self-management co ncerns the extent that one regularly gathers informat ion and plans for ca reer problem solving and decision making (Kossek, Roberts, Fisher, & Demarr 1998). One who is self-managed has a development plan, anticipates job and career changes and pr epares for them (Williams, Verble, Price, & Layne, 1995). Self-managed individuals continuously tr y to better
20 themselves by engaging in training to improve their current jobs, in anticipation of later job requirements, or retraining for other job or career oppo rtunities inside and outside the organization (London, & Mone, 1999). Literature on career self-management suggests that these individuals would antic ipate and prepare for moves and engage in activities such as upda ting oneÂ’s resume to he lp ensure successful job changes. Also, it has been suggested that em ployees who are able to ma nage and develop their own careers will have mo re employment options than will employees who do not manage their careers (Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999). One major behavioral com ponent of career self-man agement is j ob mobility preparedness. Job mobility preparedness is Â“the degr ee to which an in dividual prepares his or herself to be ready to act on internal and extern al career opportu nitiesÂ” (p. 939), and includes behaviors such as keeping a current resume, reviewing job postings, and seeking personal connections for the purpose of furthe ring oneÂ’s career (Kossek, et al., 1998). Job mobility prep aredness is hypot hesized to predic t self-reported marketability. However, since job mobility pr eparedness behaviors are often performed without the direct knowledge of ones co-workers, a rela tionship between job mobility preparedness and co -worker report of marketability is not expected. Hypothesis 8: There will be a positive relati onship betwee n job mobility preparedness and self-reported internal and external marketability. Situational Characteristics Career Development Environment Taking responsibility for career developm ent is key to staying marketable. Although organizations are provid ing less assistance to employ ees today with regard to
21 managing their careers, enabling resources still existÂ—however often it is up to individuals to seek and take advantage of them within their environments. The environment is important as it creates conditi ons that encourage and guide individuals to take charge of their careers (Manz & Sims 1980). Research has found that situational support is crucial to career se lf-management. To illustrate, Noe and his colleagues found that when managers were supportive of deve lopment efforts, employees were more likely to work to improve their skills and acqui re new ones (Noe, 1996; Noe & Wilk, 1993). Birdi, Allen, and Warr (1997) found that pe rceived support from management related to individualÂ’s job related l earning and career planning. The present study explores mentorship, career encouragement received fr om colleagues inside the workplace, nonwork support from colleagues, family and friends, and learning and development resources available as indicators of a caree r development environment. Next, each of these sources of support, and their relati onship with marketability is discussed. Mentorship. Apart from human capital variables, extensive empirical research as demonstrated that mentorship is one variable that consistently relates to career success (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz & Lima, 2004). Kr am (1985) describes a mentor as a more experienced adult who helps a younger individua l learn to succeed in the adult working world, by providing support, guidance and c ounseling to the protg. Kram (1985) established two broad categor ies of mentoring functions: career and psychosocial. Career functions are those that promote career advancement and psychosocial functions are those that involve social support and enc ouragement. Career mentoring occurs when the mentor provides sponsorship for the protg , exposes him or her to new or important projects or increases his or her visibility to significant pe ople or special opportunities
22 within the organization. Career mentori ng may also include coaching the protg, protecting him or her from poor business choi ces, as well as provi ding him or her with challenging assignments (Kram, 1983, 1985). In psychosocial mentoring, the mentor serves as a role model for whom the prot g can emulate and identify. The mentor provides acceptance and confirmation to the pr otg as well as a dvice and friendship, which together help build a sense of comp etence and self-confidence in the individual (Kram, 1983, 1985). Having a mentor should improve an i ndividualÂ’s marketability for several reasons. First, mentors provide their prot gs with visibility and connections to important others inside and outside the orga nization (Kram, 1985). These contacts often aid in career development by providing info rmation about job opportunities. Second, protgs may bask in the reflected glory of their mentors especially if the mentor is upper-level, more experienced and successful. The so-called Â“coattail effectÂ” in which a protg is pulled along as their mentor rises in the organiza tion is purported to enhance the protgÂ’s career (Kram, 1983, 1985; Whitely, Dougherty, & Dreher, 1991). In addition, career tournament theory states th at employees need to be promoted early, rather than later, in their careers in order to advance to high levels in the organization, and sponsorship provided by mentors is report ed to facilitate th is (Rosenbaum, 1984). Finally, mentors often present their protgs with challenging assignments and valuable learning opportunities. These experiences s hould lead to increased competence and greater marketability. Eby et al. (2003) found that having a ment or was related to self-perceptions of external marketability but not to internal marketability. The authors suggested that
23 mentors have less impact on marketability within the company since opportunities and resources are constrained in many organizati ons. Research confirming these ideas is lacking. Because marketability was assessed by asking the individual to make ratings of his or her own marketability, re search was needed to determin e if otherÂ’s pe rceptions of marketability are affected by the individualÂ’s protg status. A relationship between protg status and self-reported and co-wor ker-reported marketability is expected. Hypothesis 9a: There will be a positive relationship between protg status and self-reports of internal a nd external marketability. Hypothesis 9b: There will be a positive relationship between protg status and co-worker-reports of internal and external marketability. Career Encouragement. Research suggests that em ployees who receive career encouragement are more likely to be motivated about their careers, and participate in career development activities when they pe rceive their enviro nments as supportive (Maurer, 2001, 2002; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994). Career encouragement, defined as general support for career development a nd advancement, may originate from oneÂ’s supervisors, peers, family and friends, and even learning and development resources available from oneÂ’s employer (Maurer, We iss, & Barbeite, 2003; Tharenou, Latimer, & Conroy, 1994). Forms of situational support for development on the job might include providing rewards for particip ation, persuasion about the va lue of development, and offering assistance and time for participat ion. (Maurer, Weiss, & Barbeite, 2003). Studies conducted by Tharenou (1997, 2001) have demonstrated that career encouragement predicts advancement into ma nagerial jobs and is the most important predictor of career deve lopment over job, demographic and attitudinal variables. Indeed,
24 social support and encouragement, consis ting of developmental policies, resources available, and co-worker, supervisor and non-work support have been shown to predict participation in training and development in both cross-sectional a nd longitudinal studies (Maurer, et al., 2003; Noe & Wilk, 1993; Tharenou, et al., 1994; Tharenou, 1997). Research to date has not examined the effects that career support and encouragement have on an individualÂ’s marketab ility from sources other than a mentor. Confidence associated with sustaining a competitive advantage, and providing unique, value-added characteristics to organizations is likely to be enhanced by career encouragement. The current study examines three important sources of career support: career encouragement on the job, non-work support for development, and learning and developmental re sources available. Career encouragement on the job consists primarily of support from superv isors and coworkers for development and advancement. Non-work support for development is the extent that family and friends encourage participation in caree r development and improvement of oneÂ’s skills. Finally, learning and developmen tal resources availabl e consists of the amount of resources accessible to the em ployee that may aid in development of career-relevant skills. Beca use career encouragement at work has been reliably linked to development and advancement, it is expected to relate to both self assessments and co-worker ratings of inte rnal marketability. However, career encouragement at work is not expected to relate to external marketability since the construct is concerned with advancement and promotion within oneÂ’s workplace. Non-work support for development, on the othe r hand, is expected to relate to selfratings of external marketability, however is less likely to relate to internal
25 marketability. Support from family and fr iends outside the workplace is also not likely to be related to co-worker reports of marketability. Developmental resources available should predict both external and in ternal marketability and is expected to relate to both self and co-worker ratings. Hypothesis 10a: Career encouragement on the job will positively relate to selfratings of internal marketability. Hypothesis 10b: Career encouragement on the job will positively relate to coworker ratings of internal marketability. Hypothesis 10c: Non-work support for development will positively rela te to selfratings of external marketability. Hypothesis 10d: Learning and development resources will positively relate to selfratings of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 10e: Learning and development resources will positively relate to coworker ratings of internal and external marketability. Industry Characteristics Corporate reputation and percei ved organizational prestige. Individuals seeking to advance their careers might do so by empha sizing their association with their company if it is viewed by others as successful (M ael & Ashforth, 1992). Having been employed for a prestigious organization could work in the favor of a pers on seeking another job. According to social identity theory, when em ployees associate with organizations that have an attractive perceived identity, it enhan ces their self-esteem as they attain a more positive evaluation of themselves (Dutton, D ukerich & Harquail, 1994; Tajfel & Turner, 1985). They will often feel pride as a result of being part of a well-respected company
26 because it is suggested to strengthen thei r feelings of self-worth (Smidts, Pruyn & VanRiel, 2001). The employeeÂ’s identification is sensitive to how they believe outsiders view their organization as well as how outside rs view them because of their affiliation with the organization (Dutton et al., 1994). Pe rceived external prestig e is the term given to represent this concept, and results from a companyÂ’s apparent reputation (Carmeli & Freund, 2002; Smidts et al., 2001). PeopleÂ’s perceptions of a companyÂ’s standing are often determined from a multitude of factors, such as the types of products they offer, community relations, the exte nt of opportunities for employ ee growth, the organizational culture, familiarity with the company, its size and financial profitability (Cable & Grahm, 2000; Turban & Greening, 1996). An organizati onÂ’s reputation is an intangible asset and is considered a strategic resource (Carmeli & Freund, 2002). It enhances an organizationÂ’s competitive advantage and cause s prospective employees to regard it as more attractive (Carmeli & Freund, 2002; Turban & Greening, 1996). Because individuals are belie ved to appraise an employeeÂ’s character, to some extent, based on his or her organizati onal affiliation (Dutt on & Dukerich, 1991), individuals employed at highly successful organizations may pe rceive themselves and be perceived by others as more marketable than those employed at less successful organizations. It is believed that the success associated with the organization is, to some degree, transferred to the employee (Dutt on & Dukerich, 1991). For example, an advertising associate employed by soft-drink leader Coca-Cola for the last five years may be perceived as more marketable than an advertising associate employed at a small unknown soft drinks company during the same pe riod. Nevertheless, empirical research testing the relationship between organizationa l reputation and employee marketability is
27 lacking. The current study uses percei ved organizational prestige and corporate reputation as indicators of a companyÂ’s standing. Corpor ate reputation, assessed by selfreported appraisals of company products, serv ices, financial soundness, ability to attract talented people, among other factors, is comm only used to assess reputation and has been shown to correlate with actual organizationa l performance and predict company financial status and stock market value (see Carme li & Freund, 2002). Perceived organizational prestige, on the other hand, indicates what th e employee thinks outsiders believe about the organization. Both corporate reputation and perceived organiza tional prestige are expected to relate to selfand co-wor ker reported employee marketability. Hypothesis 11a : Perceived organizational prestige will positively relate to selfreported internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 11b: Perceived organizational prestige will positively relate to coworker-reported internal a nd external marketability. Hypothesis 11c: Corporate reputation will positively relate to self-reported internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 11d: Corporate reputation will positivel y relate to co-worker-reported internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 11e: Co-worker rated corporate reputation will positively relate to self-reported internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 11f: Co-worker rated corporate reputati on will positively relate to coworker-reported internal a nd external marketability.
28 To summarize, the following hypotheses were investigated in this study: Hypothesis 1: Education is positively related to self-reported employee internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 2a: Age is negatively related to self-reported internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 2b: Age is negatively related to co-wor ker-reported internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 3a: Optimism is positively related to self-reports of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 3b: Optimism is positively related to co-worker reports of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 4a: Positive self-concept is positively related to self-reports of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 4b: Positive self-concept is positively rela ted to co-worker reports of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 5a: Learning goal orientation is positively related to self reports of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 5b: Learning goal orientation is positively related to co-worker reports of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 6a: Internal networking behavior will pos itively relate to self-assessments of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 6b: External networking behavior will positively relate to selfassessments of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 6c: The number of contacts in other func tions in a network will positively relate to self assessments of in ternal and external marketability. Hypothesis 6d: The number of contacts at higher or ganizational levels will positivity relate to self assessments of in ternal and external marketability. Hypothesis 7a: There will be a positive relationship between voluntary participation in development activities and self-reported internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 7b: There will be a positive relationship between voluntary participation in development activities and co-worker-reported internal and external marketability.
29 Hypothesis 8: There will be a positive relationship between jo b mobility preparedness and self-reported internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 9a: There will be a positive relationship between protg status and selfreports of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 9b: There will be a positive relationship between protg status and coworker-reports of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 10a: Career encouragement on the job will positively relate to selfratings of internal marketability. Hypothesis 10b: Career encouragement on the job will positively relate to co-worker ratings of internal marketability. Hypothesis 10c: Non-work support for development will positively relate to selfratings of external marketability. Hypothesis 10d: Learning and development resources will positively relate to selfratings of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 10e: Learning and development resources will positively relate to co-worker ratings of internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 11a : Perceived organizational prestige will positively relate to self-reported internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 11b: Perceived organizational prestige wi ll positively relate to co-workerreported internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 11c: Corporate reputation will positively relate to self-reported internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 11d: Corporate reputation will positivel y relate to co-worker-reported internal and external marketability. Hypothesis 11e: Co-worker rated corporate reputati on will positively relate to selfreported internal and ex ternal marketability. Hypothesis 11f: Co-worker rated corporate reputation will positively relate to co-workerreported internal and ex ternal marketability.
30 Method Participants The participants of this study consis ted of 485 employees and 176 co-workers. Participants were members of professional a ssociations who participated in email list serves. List serves provide a discussion forum for individuals to communicate about specific topics via email distribution lists. Groups included the Civil Engineers Group and the Assessments in Higher Educati on Group, among others. The groups had memberships ranging from 142 to 4404 individu als. Although most groups touted high membership, many were relatively inactiv e, as exhibited by the magnitude of participation, e.g., 5 email messages per month by the same 5 individuals. List serves were selected so that a large and divers e array of individuals and job types were represented. See Appendix A for a complete list of list serve groups, membership quantity, and activity levels. Of the 421 participants who reported their ages, the majo rity (82%, n = 344) were between the ages of 26 and 55. The sample was well represented by each of the age ranges: 25% were 20-30 years (n = 104); 28% were 31-40 years (n = 118); 27% were 4150 years (n = 115); 15% were 51-60 years (n = 65); and 5% were 6170 years (n = 19). They majority of study participants were Caucasian (66%, n = 277) and there were more females (62%, n = 259) than males. Most of the res pondents (67%, n = 279) had earned at least a masters degree [.2% (n = 1) completed high school; 6% (n = 25) had completed some college; 18% (n = 75) comp leted a bachelors degree; 8.7% (n = 36)
31 completed some graduate work; 40.4% (n = 168) completed a masters degree; and 26.7% (n = 111) completed a doctoral degree]. Pa rticipants were prim arily white collar employees holding high level positions in a larg e assortment of industries. See Appendix B and C for tables tallying college and gra duate school majors and current job titles respectively. Procedure Invitations to participate were emailed to individuals via list serve. The email explained that a career development research project was being conducted as part of a graduate studentÂ’s dissertation from the Univer sity of South Florida. The email described that the study was webbased, and that th e questionnaire would take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Individuals were told that participation was voluntary and that responses would remain anonymous and confiden tial. Individuals needed to be employed and meet a 30-hour per week minimum in order to participate. They were informed that they would be asked to email one of their co -workers to answer brief, careerrelated questions about them. If inte rested, participants clicked on the web link in the body of their email to go to the web site. See Appendi x D for the complete email solicitation. Upon arriving to the web page, participants were asked to agree or disagree to an informed consent prior to taking part in th e survey. See Appendix E for the complete informed consent. After completing the su rvey, the participants were given thorough instructions with reference to emailing their colleague. Participants were told that the individual they selected had to be a supervisor or anothe r individual that they work closely with at their organization, and that individual needed to be someone who was very familiar with their work style.
32 They were first asked to provide a 5-char acter, private pass-code that they would share with their colleague via email. It wa s explained that the c ode would be used to match their survey results with those of thei r co-worker during the analysis phase of the study. They were told that the 5-digit code could be any combination of letters and numbers and were given examples of crea tive codes. It was important that the participants be urged to use original or unusual codes to av oid the probability that two individuals would generate the same 5-digit code. The partic ipants entered their code on the participant survey providing the first ha lf of the match needed in the co-worker analyses. No identical codes were obtained. Next they were aske d to cut and paste the research invitation into the email to their co-worker. The email was a preassembled message explaining the purpose of the study a nd requesting that the colleague complete a brief survey. The co-worker was told that th ey were selected by the participant because they would be best able to answer work related questions about him or her. The email contained the link to the co-worker survey. The participant was to provide their coworker with the 5-digit code in the email as well. See Appendix F for the complete instructions to the participan t and the co-worker email. Upon arriving to the co-worker survey web site, the colleague needed to enter the code provided to them by the participant in order to begin the co-worker survey. This st ep provided the second half of the match needed to conduct the co-worker analyses. Sample Attrition Five hundred-eight initial individuals began filling out the partic ipant survey. Of these 508, only 485 participants completed the su rvey and provided data that were used in the analyses. Sample sizes varied somewhat because participants were permitted to
33 skip questions. This primarily affected the demographic data which had sample sizes that ranged from 414 to 421. Of the 485 participants 313 (65%) chose to enter in a code at the end of the survey indicating their agreem ent with sending an email invitation to one co-worker. However, the number of particip ants who actually emailed the invitation to their co-worker is not known. In addition, specific reasons for the co-workersÂ’ lack of participation, e.g., the email not being r eceived, the co-worker not understanding the directions, lack of interest, etc., could not be assessed and was most likely outside of the initial participantsÂ’ direct control. In any event, 216 co-workers proceeded to the online co-worker survey and entered the code provide d to them by the participant. Among these 216 co-workers, 176 completed the survey in full and were used in the matched analyses. Of these 176 co-workers, 30 (17%) identified themselves as supervisors, and 145 (82%) indicated that they were co-workers. As mentioned above, providing a 5-di git code suggested approval by the participant to be rated by his/her co-worke r. To determine whether survey responses differed as a function of whether or not they chose to provide the c ode, demographics and study variables among the two groups were compar ed. Results indicated that those who did not provide the code ( M = 7.26, SD =7.50) had higher levels of organizational tenure than those who did provide a code ( M =5.41, SD = 5.78), ( t (408) = 2.26, p < .05). In addition, those with higher positive self-concepts ( M = 3.71, SD = .55) were more likely to provide a code and thus agree to be rated by a co-worker than those with lowerpositive self-concepts ( M = 3.60, SD = .57), ( t (473) = -1.98, p < .05). Additional t-tests demonstrated that the two groups did not di ffer in terms of job tenure, occupational tenure, gender, race, educati on or any of the other study variables of interest.
34 Likewise, to determine if Â‘other-responsesÂ’ differed as a function of relationship with the participant, responses from co-workers and supervisors were compared on their ratings of Â‘other-ratedÂ’ va riables (internal and external marketability and corporate reputation) as well as all participant-reported predictor variables. As for Â‘otherÂ’ ratings, Co-workers and supervisors did not differ in their ratings of internal or external marketability but did exhibit differences in te rms of corporate reputa tion. Supervisors ( M = 7.61, SD = 1.58) provided higher ratings on corpor ate reputation than did co-workers ( M = 6.84, SD = 1.75), ( t (174) = 2.38, p < .05). Of the other self-rated predictor variables, participants who had supervisors provide their ratings ha d a larger number of networking contacts than participants who we re rated by co-workers. Participants who were rated by their supervisors had more networking contacts in other departments ( M = 4.92, SD = .28) than participants wh o were rated by co-workers ( M = 4.60, SD = .84), ( t (174) = 1.86, p < .10). Likewise, participants who were rated by supervisors had more contacts in higher organizational levels ( M = 4.72, SD = .73) than did participants who were rated by co-workers ( M = 4.19, SD = 1.20), ( t (174) = 2.11, p < .05). Measures A 107-item, web based questionnaire included items intended to assess participantsÂ’ human capital, positivity tra its, proactive career behaviors, career development environment, industry characteris tics, marketability as well as demographic information. Co-workers completed a 19-item web-based survey which included items to assess the participantsÂ’ internal and external marketability, corporate reputation and one item assessing the relationship to the participant (supe rvisor or co-worker). Responses to scale items were averaged to produce total scores except where noted. Items for the
35 participant survey can be found in Appendix G and items for the co-worker survey can be found in Appendix H. Age. Participants indicated their age by sele cting one of twelve age ranges that consisted of five year intervals from under 20 years to over 70 years. Education. Education level was assessed by asking participants to indicate their highest degree earned. Options ranged fr om (1) High School/GED to (6) Doctorate. Optimism. Optimism was assessed using Sc heier et alÂ’s (1985, 1994) 10-item Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R). The scale had six items designed to measure expectancies for positive versus negative outcomes, and included four filler items. Sample items include, Â“In uncertain times, I us ually expect the best,Â” and Â“I hardly ever expect things to go my wayÂ”. Responses were indicated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongl y agree. Filler items were removed prior to all analyses. Responses were averaged to yield an overall optimism score with higher scores representing greater optimism. Scheie r et al. (1994) reported an alpha of .82 using the LOT as did Begley, Lee and Czajka (2000). Coefficient alpha obtained in the present study was .81. Positive self-concept Positive self-concept was measured using Judge et al.Â’s (2003) 12-item core self-evalu ations scale (CSES). The measure was designed to assess a unidimensional construct getting at the sour ce of the commonality among the four core traits (self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of cont rol and emotional stability). The scale has been shown to demonstrate internal consiste ncy, test-retest reliability and inter-source agreement (Judge et al., 2003). Furthermore, it has displayed conve rgent and divergent validity with other vari ables and has been found to be a better predictor than the four
36 individual core traits in predicting focal criteria in industrial and organizational psychology Â– job satisfaction, performance a nd life satisfaction (Judge et al., 2003). Sample items include, Â“Sometimes, I do not f eel in control of my work,Â” and Â“I am capable of coping with most of my problemsÂ”. Responses were made on a five-point scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Intern al consistencies for the CSES as assessed by coefficient alpha have ranged from .81 to .87 (Judge et al., 2003). Coefficient alpha for the present study was .84. Learning Goal Orientation Learning goal orientati on was assessed using an 8item scale developed and validated by Button et al. (1996). A sample item is, Â“The opportunity to do challenging work is important to me.Â” Responses were made on a 7point scale that ranged from (1) Â“strongly disagreeÂ” to (7 ) Â“strongly agree.Â” Agreement indicated a desire to perform challenging tasks, learn new skills and generate strategies for working on difficult activities. This scale has been utilized in previous organizational research with reliabilities ranging from .73 to .88 (Brown, 2001; Button et al., 1996; Fisher & Ford, 1998; Godshalk & Sosik, 2003; Potosky & Ramakrishna, 2002). The reliability coefficient for the current study was .87. Networking. Networking was assessed by the extent of oneÂ’s internal and external networking behavior, the number of contacts in f unctions other than oneÂ’s own, and the number of contacts in higher orga nizational levels. Extent of networking behavior within the organization (i.e., I am well connected within the organization) was assessed with three-items used by Eby et al (2003). Extent of networking behavior outside the organization (i.e ., I regularly network with individuals outside of my organization) was assessed with Eby et al.Â’s (2003) four-item measure. Eby et al. (2003)
37 reported coefficient alphas of .93 and .80 for th e internal and external networking scales respectively. Coefficient alphas for th e present study were .91 and .87 respectively. Â‘Contacts in other functionsÂ’ and Â‘contact s in higher levelsÂ’ were each assessed using one-item measures gauging the number of individuals in oneÂ’s network who are identified as members of a different func tion or the number of individuals in higher organizational levels than the employee. Re sponse options ranged from (1) = 0 to (5) = four or more. These measurements have been used by Seibert et al. (2001) in the assessment of social capital. Voluntary participation in development. Based on the work of Noe and Wilk (1993) employees were asked to consider co urses, workshops, and seminars sponsored by the organization and those pr ovided by outside sites when completing 3 items measuring voluntary participation in development. On e item measured the number of courses the respondent has taken in the past year on a vol untary basis. A 7-point scale was provided, ranging from (1) = none to (7) = 6 or more. The second item assessed the amount of time spent in non-mandatory training and developm ent activities per year. A 10-point scale was provided whereby (1) = 0, (2) = 1-8, (3) = 9-16Â… (10) = 65 or more hours. Finally, the third item measured the number of deve lopmental activities that the employee plans to take in the upcoming year. An 8-point sc ale was provided whereby (1) =0 to (8) = 7 or more. As in past research assessing partic ipation in development, number of courses taken, time spent in development, and future plans for development were each analyzed separately in the present study (Noe & Wilk, 1993). Job mobility preparedness Job mobility preparedne ss behaviors were assessed using Kossek et al.Â’s (1998) 9-item measure. The scale assessed the degree that
38 individuals are prepared to act on internal a nd external job opportuni ties. A sample item is, Â“Over the past 6 months, to what extent have you actively inves tigated internal job postingsÂ”? Responses were i ndicated on a 5-point scale whereby (1) de noted not at all, and (5) denoted a great deal, except for th e item Â“How current is your resumeÂ” whereby the scale ranged from (1) not at all current, to (5) very current. Answers were averaged to produce a job mobility preparedness score. Kossek et al. (1988) reported a Cronbach alpha of .87. Reliability coefficient for the present study was .86. Mentorship/sponsorship To identify the protg status of the participants, each was asked to respond Â‘yesÂ’ or Â‘noÂ’ to the fo llowing question: Â“Do you have a mentor? A mentor is an experienced employee who se rves as a role model, provides support, direction and feedback regard ing career plans and interperso nal development. A mentor is also someone who is in a position of power, who looks out for you, gives you advice and / or brings your accomplishments to the attention of people who have power in the company.Â” This definition of mentoring has been applied in past research by Day and Allen (2004) and Fagenson (1992), and is ba sed on the work of Kram (1985), Noe (1988), and Fagenson (1988, 1989). Almost half of the sample (47.3%, n = 210) indicated that they had a ment or. Most (64%, n = 134) indica ted that the mentor worked at the same organization. Only 8% (n = 17) indicated that they had met the mentor through a formal mentoring program sponsored by the organization and 41% (n = 86) indicated that their mentor wa s also their supervisor. Career encouragement at work. General encouragement for career development and advancement from colleagues and more senior staff at work was assessed by TharenouÂ’s (2001) 3-item scale. A sample item is, Â“Have colleagues at the same level as
39 yourself encouraged you in your career development (e.g., in promotion or advancement within the organization)?Â” Tharenou has reported alphas ranging from .79 to .80 (Tharenou, 1997; 2001; et al., 1994). The coeffi cient alpha for the present study was .81. Non-work social support for development Development support received from important people away from the work place, su ch as friends, family and counselors, was assessed with Maurer et alÂ’s (2003) 8-item measure. A sample items is Â“Members of my family are supportive of my learning new thi ngs that improve my career skills.Â” Maurer et al. report an internal c onsistency of .90. Coefficient alpha for the present study was .82. Learning and development resources available Three items from Maurer et al. (2003) were used to assess the availability of learning and development resources to employees. A sample item is Â“There are learning and skill development resources available to me through my employer that can help me improve my career skills.Â” Maurer et al. reported an al pha of .80. Coefficient alpha for the present study was .76. Perceived organizational prestige How an employee thinks outsiders view his or her organization and him-or herself as a me mber of the organiza tion was assessed using Smidts et al.Â’s (2001) a four-item perceived ex ternal prestige scale. Sample items are, Â“Our organization has a good reputationÂ” a nd Â“Our organization is looked upon as a prestigious company to work fo r.Â” Responses were indicated on a five-point Likert scale with (1) = disagree to (5) = agree. Smidts et al. (2001) reported a coefficient alpha of .73. Coefficient alpha in the present study was .85. Corporate reputation. A measure based on Fortune MagazineÂ’s Annual Survey of AmericaÂ’s Most Admired Corporations was used to assess corporate reputation. To limit
40 possible common method bias obs erved in single-source data, both employees and their co-workers were asked to complete the meas ure of corporate reput ation. Participants were asked the following: Â“How would you rate your company on each of the following attributes: quality of management; quality of products or services; long-term investment values; innovativeness; financia l soundness; ability to attract develop and keep talented people; community and environment responsibi lity; and use of cor porate assets?Â” The eight items are rated using 10point scales whereby (1) = poo r and (10) = excellent. Fombrun and Shanley (1990) factor analyzed th e eight attributes and discovered that they loaded on a single factor, suggesting that th e measure gauges an underlying and stable construct of reputation. They reported an alpha of .97. In evaluating the measureÂ’s suitability for organizationa l research purposes, Fryxell a nd Wang (1994) concluded that the measure does not accurately assess the spec ific constructs implied by the scaleÂ’s item content, but instead addresses a firmÂ’s perceived reputation. In the present study, coefficient alphas were .90 and .92 for the participant and co-worker samples respectively. The measure also exhibited acceptable convergent a nd divergent validity with other relevant study variab les. This was evidenced by high inter-correlations with co-worker rated reputation and organizational prestige, and low inter-correlations with dissimilar variables. Marketability. Perceived internal and external marketability were assessed with a ten-item measure based on Eby et al.Â’s marketability scale. Eby et al.Â’s original measure contained three items that tapped internal ma rketability i.e., Â“My company views me as an asset to the organizationÂ” and three items that tapped external marketability i.e., Â“I could easily obtain a comparable job with a nother employerÂ”. To enhance the content
41 validity and reliability of the measure, two a dditional items were a dded to each scale. A review of related scales was used to in form the development of the new items. Specifically, VeigaÂ’s (1981; 1983) 1-item ma rketability scale, Leana and FeldmenÂ’s (1990) prospects for future employment s cale and Prussia et al.Â’s (2001) one-item employment expectancy measure were consid ered when creating the new items for the current measure. Consequently, the adapted s cales consisted of 5 ite ms assessing internal marketability and five items assessing external marketability. Responses were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The internal and external marketability scales were slightly reworded to reflect the coworkersÂ’ assessments of the participantsÂ’ marketability. Eby et al. report internal consistency of .73 and .74 for the original in ternal and external marketability scales, respectively. Coefficient alphas for the adap ted scales were .78 a nd .87 for the self-rated internal and external marketability, resp ectively and .83 and .92 for co-worker rated internal and external mark etability respectively. Because the scales were modified from their original form, the items were subjected to a factor analysis to confirm the distinctiveness of the internal and external marketability indicators. Since the scales we re intercorrelated, principal axis factoring was used with oblimin rotation. When a twofactor solution was requested, items loaded on the internal and external marketability it ems as expected. The factor analysis was repeated for co-worker reports of internal a nd external marketability and similar results were obtained. See Appendix I and J fo r the factor analytic results. Demographics and control variables Participants were asked to answer demographic questions regarding race, gender, marital status, children living at home,
42 organizational tenure, job tenure and occupati onal tenure. Because race and job tenure exhibited significant correlations with the de pendent variables of se lf-reported internal and external marketability, they were used as controls in those regression analyses. Regression analyses for co-worker ratings of internal and external marketability did not necessitate the use of control variables.
43 Results Table 1 presents descriptive statistics fo r all study variables. Means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations are presented in Table 2. Correlation analyses were used to conduct all tests of hypotheses. Hierarchical multiple regressions were performed and are presented follo wing the tests of hypotheses. Selfand Other Ratings of Inter nal and External Marketability. Although not specifically hypothesized in th e introduction, it was important to establish convergent and discriminate validity of the marketability sc ales. Relationships we re expected between self-and co-worker reports of internal marketability and self-and other reports of external marketability Correlation analyses supported these pr edictions. Self-reported internal marketability was significantly related to co -worker reported internal marketability ( r = .22, p < .01) yet not related to co-worker reported external marketability ( r = -.02, ns). Self-reported external marketability was si gnificantly related to co-worker reported external marketability ( r = .15, p < .05) yet not related to co-worker internal marketability ( r = .01, ns). Human Capital. As predicted by Hypothesis 1, education was positively related to both self-reported internal ( r = .10, p < .05) and external marketability ( r = .11, p < .05) providing full support for the hypothesis. Hypothesis 2a suggested that older participants would have lower ra tings of self-reported internal and external marketability. As exhibited by zero-order correlations, the relationship between internal marketability
44 and age was not significant ( r = -.06, ns), yet there was a si gnificant negative relationship between age and self-reported external marketability ( r = -.11, p < .05) providing partial support for hypothesis 2a. Hypot hesis 2b suggested that age would be negatively related to co-worker reported internal and external marketability. As can be seen in Table 2, there was no relationship between co-worker repo rts of internal or external marketability and participant age ( r = -.02, ns; r = -.02, ns). Thus, no support was found for hypothesis 2b. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables Variable # of Items Likert Scale Points n M SD Observed Range Alpha 1. Internal Marketability 5 1-5 475 3.57 0.74 1.20-5.00 (.78) 2. External Marketability 5 1-5 475 3.79 0.77 1.00-5.00 (.87) 3. CR Internal Marketability 5 1-5 176 4.08 0.76 1.00-5.00 (.83) 4. CR External Marketability 5 1-5 176 4.40 0.72 1.00-5.00 (.92) 5. Relationship 1 n/a 176 1.17 0.38 n/a n/a 6. Organizational Tenure 1 n/a 414 5.89 6.29 0-32 n/a 7. Job Tenure 1 n/a 414 4.45 4.57 0-26 n/a 8. Occupational Tenure 1 n/a 414 12.24 9.32 0-44 n/a 9. Gender 1 n/a 418 1.61 0.49 n/a n/a 10. Race 1 n/a 42 0 1.32 0.47 n/a n/a 11. Age 1 n/a 421 5.44 2.27 1-11 n/a 12. Education 1 n/a 416 4.63 1.23 1-6 n/a 13. Optimism 10 1-5 480 3.83 0.67 1.50-5.00 (.81) 14. Positive Self-Concept 12 1-5 475 3.67 0.56 1.50-5.00 (.84) 15. Learning Goal Orientation 8 1-7 482 6.27 0.65 1.00-7.00 (.87) 16. Internal Networking 3 1-5 478 3.74 0.86 1.00-5.00 (.91) 17. External Networking 3 1-5 477 3.56 0.90 1.00-5.00 (.87) 18. Contacts Other Functions 1 1-5 475 4.64 0.91 1-5 n/a 19. Contacts Higher Levels 1 1-5 475 4.34 1.15 1-5 n/a 20. Development Courses 1 n/a 479 4.01 1.95 1-5 n/a 21. Hours in Courses 1 n/a 481 5.18 3.01 1-10 n/a 22. Development Plans 1 n/a 477 3.65 1.85 1-7 n/a 23. Job Mobility Preparedness 9 1-5 475 3.01 0.98 1.00-5.00 (.86) 24. Mentor 1 n/a 475 1.47 0.50 n/a n/a 25. Career Encouragement 3 1-7 475 3.55 1.80 1.00-7.00 (.81) 26. Non-work Support 8 1-5 475 4.32 0.56 1.88-5.00 (.82) 27. Resources Available 3 1-5 475 4.03 0.83 1.00-5.00 (.76) 28. Organizational Prestige 4 1-5 475 3.82 0.79 1.00-5.00 (.85) 29. Corporate Reputation 8 1-10 475 6.69 1.82 1.00-10.00 (.90) 30. CR Corporate Reputation 8 1-10 176 6.97 1.74 1.38-10.00 (.92) Note. CR denotes co-worker rated variables.
45Table 2 Correlations Among Study Variables Variable MSD 12345678910111213 1. Internal Marketability3.570.74(.78) 2. External Marketability3.790.77 .36**(.87) 3. CR Internal Marketabilit y a4.080.76.22**.01(.83) 4. CR External Marketabilit y a4.400.72-.02.15*.54**(.92) 5. Relationshipa1.170.38-.06-.05-.05-.02 6. Organizational Tenure5.896.29-.02 -.09 .02 .03 .04 7. Job Tenure4.454.57-.11*-.12* .04 .04-.01 .56** 8. Occupational Tenure12.09.32-.07 -.09-.02 .03 .02 .61** .58** 9. Gender1.610.49 .00 -.07-.03 .04 .08-.06-.07-.18** 10. Race1.320.47 .01 .11* .04 .02-.05-.09-.09-.09-.05 11. Age5.442.27-.06 -.11*-.02-.02 .10 .52** .43** .71**-.11*-.13** 12. Education4.631.23 .10* .11*-.01 .07 .08 .10* .03 .11* .03-.27** .19** 13. Optimism3.830.67 .34** .28** .17* .04-.07 .07 .05 .09 .08-.03 .15** .07(.81) 14. Positive Self-Concept3.670.56 .40** .34** .11 .13Â†-.08 .10* .05 .07-.01-.04 .13** .13** .71** 15. Learning Goal Orientation6.270.65 .16** .19** .01 .00-.01 .03-.01 .01 .06-.02 .02 .02 .17** 16. Internal Networking3.740.86 .36** .32** .04-.02 .02 .15** .06 .10*-.05-.16** .07 .10* .29** 17. External Networking3.560.90 .31** .34** .00 .07 .03 .10* .11* .18** .00-.09 .18** .20** .34** 18. Contacts Other Functions4.640.91 .11* .17**-.12-.03 .16* .22** .18** .21** .01-.15** .24** .11* .15** 19. Contacts Higher Levels4.341.15 .21** .24**-.08 .07 .16* .11* .05 .12** .02-.11* .12* .14** .22** 20. Development Courses4.011.95 .03 .12* .02-.01 .05 .08 .06 .12** .10-.07 .16** .19** .11* 21. Hours in Courses5.183.01 .07 .13** .12Â†-.02 .10 .09* .08 .18** .00 .02 .15** .07 .04 22. Development Plans3.651.85 .09 .13** .07 .10 .06 .04 .03 .08 .06 .01 .03 .07 .09* 23. Job Mobility Preparedness3.010.98 .01 .17**-.10 .08 .02-.18**-.17**-.17**-.03 .11*-.18**-.02 .03 24. Mentor1.470.50 .18** .15** .04 .01 .14Â†-.07-.15**-.14** .13** .03-.19** .07 .13** 25. Career Encouragement3.551.80 .39** .20** .09-.02 .01 .05-.01-.05 .05-.07-.06 .15** .18** 26. Non-work Support4.320.56 .13* .28**-.07 .09-.01-.06-.03-.06 .22**-.01-.06 .08 .23** 27. Resources Available4.030.83 .36** .20** .13Â†-.03-.10 .10* .05 .08 .03-.08 .09 .13** .20** 28. Organizational Prestige3.820.79 .36** .12* .10-.03 .01 .06 .00-.02 .04-.03 .05 .08 .17** 29. Corporate Reputation6.691.82 .49** .12* .17* .01 .00-.01-.04-.04 .01-.04 .09 .05 .27** 30. CR Corporate Reputationa6.971.74.13Â†-.02.27**.07.17*.06.08.06.11.00.05-.06.13Â† Note. p < .05. ** p < .01. Â† p < .10. Ns ranged from 485 to 475 for study variables and from 414 to 421 for demographic variables due to missing data .aCR = Co-worker rated. N for Co-worker rated variables = 176 Reliabilities appear in parentheses on the diagonal. Relationship: Co-worker = 1, Supervisor =2; Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female. Race: 1 = white, 2 = minority. Age: 12 point scale ranging from 'under 20 yrs.' to 'over 70 yrs.' Average was 36-40yrs. Education: 6 point scale ranging fro m 'high school' to 'doctoral degree'.
46Table 2 continued Variable1415161718192021222324252627282930 1. Internal Marketability 2. External Marketability 3. CR Internal Marketabilit y a4. CR External Marketabilit y a5. Relationshipa6. Organizational Tenure 7. Job Tenure 8. Occupational Tenure 9. Gender 10. Race 11. Age 12. Education 13. Optimism 14. Positive Self-Concept(.84) 15. Learning Goal Orientation .25**(.87) 16. Internal Networking .36** .19**(.91) 17. External Networking .39** .20** .49**(.87) 18. Contacts Other Functions .21** .13** .38** .36** 19. Contacts Higher Levels .22** .16** .41** .35** .62** 20. Development Courses .09 .05 .19** .26** .15** .20** 21. Hours in Courses .07 .11* .14** .23** .15** .17** .61** 22. Development Plans .09* .07 .22** .20** .15** .18** .68** .54** 23. Job Mobility Preparedness .04 .05 .18** .25** .03 .09 .10* .17** .17**(.86) 24. Mentor .13** .05 .09 .11* .04 .17** .10* .08 .08 .03 25. Career Encouragement .20** .05 .31** .21** .15** .24** .19** .17** .21** .13* .28**(.81) 26. Non-work Support .23** .16** .15** .24** .09 .20** .13** .14** .12* .11* .05 .17**(.82) 27. Resources Available .26** .11* .13** .16** .12* .17** .23** .25** .21** .01 .15** .31** .18**(.76) 28. Organizational Prestige .25** .07 .14** .10* .04 .08 .11* .13* .14**-.07 .09 .22** .11* .29**(.85) 29. Corporate Reputation .32** .09 .17** .13** .04 .08 .11* .08 .16**-.14** .16** .22** .05 .36** .66**(.90) 30. CR Corporate Reputationa .08 .07 .01-.02-.02-.01 .13Â† .05 .06-.23** .05-.04-.06 .24** .24** .30**(.92) Note. p < .05. ** p < .01. Â† p < .10. Ns ranged from 485 to 475 for study variables and from 414 to 421 for demographic variables due to missing data .aCR = Co-worker rated. N for Co-worker rated variables = 176 Reliabilities appear in parentheses on the diagonal. Relationship: Co-worker = 1, Supervisor =2; Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female. Race: 1 = white, 2 = minority. Age: 12 point scale ranging from 'under 20 yrs.' to 'over 70 yrs.' Average was 36-40yrs. Education: 6 point scale ranging fro m 'high school' to 'doctoral degree'.
47 Positivity Traits Hypothesis 3a predicted that those who reported being more optimistic would report greater self-reported internal and external marketability. The results indicated that optimism was signifi cantly related to self-reported internal marketability ( r = .34, p < .01) and external marketability ( r = .28, p < .01). Thus, full support was found for hypothesis 3a. Hypothesis 3b proposed that optimis m would positively relate to co-worker reports of internal and external marketab ility. As shown in Table 2, optimism was significantly correlated with co-worker reports of internal marketability ( r = .17, p < .05), yet was not significantly rela ted to co-worker reports of external marketability ( r = .04, ns). Thus, only limited support was found for hypothesis 3b. Hypothesis 4a predicted that individual s high on positive self-concept would have greater self-reported internal and external marketability. Results indicated that as positive self-concept increased, so did internal ( r = .40, p < .01) and external marketability ( r = .34, p < .01), providing full support fo r hypothesis 4a. Hypothesis 4b predicted a positive relationship between positive self-concept and co-worker reports of internal and external marketability. As s een in Table 2, positiv e self-concept was not related to co-worker reports of internal marketability ( r = .11, ns) nor external marketability ( r = .13, p < .10). Thus, no support was established for hypothesis 4b. Hypothesis 5a posited that learning goal orientation would be related to selfreports of internal and external marketabil ity. Results indicate a significant positive correlation between learning goal orientation and internal ( r = .16, p < .01) and external marketability ( r = .19, p < .01) providing full support fo r hypothesis 5a. Hypothesis 5b
48 predicted a relationship betw een learning goal orientation and co-worker reports of internal and external marketability. As can be seen in Table 2, l earning goal orientation was not related to internal ( r = .01, ns) nor external marketability ( r = .00, ns). Thus, no support for Hypothesis 5b was found. Proactive Career Behaviors A positive relationship be tween internal networking and self-assessment of intern al and external marketabilit y was predicted in Hypothesis 6a. Internal networking positively re lated to internal marketability ( r = .36, p < .01) and external marketability ( r = .32, p < .01), yielding full suppor t for Hypothesis 6a. Likewise, full support was found for Hypothe sis 6b which suggested that external networking would positively relate to internal ( r = .31, p < .01) and external marketability ( r = .34, p < .01). Hypothesis 6c suggested that the number of contacts one has in other functions would positively relate to self-reports of internal and external marketability. Zero-order correlations betw een contacts and internal ( r = .11, p < .05) and external marketability ( r = .17, p < .01) were significant, provi ding support for Hypothesis 6c. Similar to above results, Hypothesis 6d, predic ted that having contacts in higher levels would positively relate to internal ( r = .21, p < .01) and external marketability ( r = .24, p < .01). Hypothesis 7a predicted a positive relati onship between voluntar y participation in development activities and self-reported intern al and external marketability. As can be seen by Table 2, participation in development courses ( r = .12, p < .05), hours in courses ( r = .13, p < .01), and development plans ( r = .13, p < .01) each positively related to external marketability but not internal ma rketability. Thus, only partial support was found for Hypothesis 7a. Hypothesis 7b suggested a relationship betw een participation in
49 development and co-worker assessed internal an d external marketability. As can be seen in Table 2, the hours spent in developmental co urses not related to co-worker ratings of internal marketability ( r = .12, p < .10), and relationships were not significant for coworker ratings of internal marketabi lity and number of development courses ( r = .02, ns), plans for development ( r = .07, ns) or co-worker ratings of external marketability and developmental courses ( r = -.01, ns), hours in courses ( r = -.02, ns) nor development plans ( r = 10, ns). A positive relationship between job mob ility preparedness and self-reported internal and external marketability was pr edicted by Hypothesis 8. As in the above findings, job mobility preparedness was significa ntly related to external marketability ( r = .17, p < .01) but not internal marketability ( r = -.10, ns). Career Development Environment Hypothesis 9a predicted a positive relationship between protg stat us and self-reports of internal and external marketability. Results were supportive in that having a ment or was positively related to both internal ( r =.18, p < .01) and external marketability ( r = .15, p < .01). Hypothesis 9b, predicting a positive relationship between protg status and co-worker ratings of internal ( r = .04, ns) and external marketability ( r = .01, ns) received no support. Hypothesis 10a suggested a positive rela tionship between career encouragement on the job and internal marketability. As predicted, participants who indicated higher career encouragement had highe r internal marketability ( r = .39, p < .01). Hypothesis 10b suggesting a relationship between career encouragement and co-worker assessments of internal marketability was not supported ( r = .09, ns), thus no support was found for Hypothesis 10b. Hypothesis 10c suggested a relationship between non-work support for
50 development and self-ratings of external marketability. This hypothesis was fully supported ( r = .28, p < .01). A positive relationship between learning and development resources and selfratings of internal and external marketab ility was posited by hypothesis 10d. Bivariate correlations provided support for this hypothesis for internal ( r = .36, p < .01) and external ( r = .20, p < .01) marketability. Hypothe sis 10e predicted a relationship between learning and development resources an d co-worker assessments of internal and external marketability. The relationshi p between co-worker reported internal marketability and resources was not significant ( r = .13, p < .10) and no relationship was exhibited between co-worker reported ex ternal marketability and resources ( r = -.03, ns), thus only limited support was found for this hypothesis. Industry Characteristics Hypothesis 11a predicte d a positive relationship between organizational prestige and self-reported internal and external marketability. Significant correlations were e xhibited for both internal ( r = .36, p < .01) and external marketability ( r = .12, p < .05) providing full support fo r the hypothesis. Hypothesis 11b suggested a relationship between prestige and co-worker reported in ternal and external marketability. Prestige did not si gnificantly relate to internal ( r = .10, ns) nor external marketability ( r = -.03, ns). Hypothesis 11c predic ted a relationship between corporate reputation and self-report ed internal and extern al marketability. As can be seen in Table 1, bivariate correlations were significant for internal ( r = .49, p < .01) and external marketability ( r = .12, p < .05) providing full support fo r Hypothesis 11c. Hypothesis 11d posited a significant relationship betw een corporate reputa tion and co-worker reported internal and external marketability. Corporate reputation was positively related
51 to co-worker reported internal marketability ( r = .17, p < .05), but not co-worker reported external marketability ( r = .01, ns). Thus only limite d support was found for Hypothesis 11d. Hypothesis 11e predicted a relationship between co-worker rated corporate reputation and self-reported internal and external marketability. The results indicated that there was no significant relationship be tween co-worker rated reputation and selfreported internal marketability ( r = .13, p < .10). In addition, co -worker rated reputation was not related to self-reporte d external marketability ( r = -.02, ns) Hypothesis 11f suggested a relationship between co-worker rated corporate reputation and co-worker reported internal and external mark etability. Results supported a significant correlation between co-worker rated corporate reputation and co-worker rated internal marketability ( r = .27, p < .01), but not external marketability ( r = .07, ns). Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses To examine the overall amount of variance associated with the dependent variable explained by the study variables, hierarchical multiple regressions were performed. This procedure allows for shared variance am ong the predictors to be accounted for and reveals each independent variableÂ’s relation to the dependent variable after the effects of the other variables are controll ed. Results should be inte rpreted with caution, however, since this method is intended to isolate shared variance among variables, yet may unintentionally remove true variance related to the dependent vari able (Spector, Zapf, Chen, & Frese, 2000). Determining the re lative importance or unique effects of independent variables is at ti mes undesirable, especially when they are intercorrelated (Pedhazur, 1997).
52 All variables thought to be related to the dependent va riables were entered into the regression equations in ordered sets. Job tenure and race were entered first as controls for regressi on equations concerning self-reported marketability since they exhibited zero-order correlations with the de pendent variable. No demographic variables correlated with co-worker reported marketability and thus these regressions did not necessitate the use of control variables. Following the control vari ables, each group of predictors was entered into the equation in the order of presumed greatest theoretical influence on the dependent variables. Hu man capital variables were entered in the second step of the equation given that one goa l of the study was to explore the effects of predictors of marketability beyond that of hum an capital. Positivity traits were entered third because, after human capital, they ar e likely to provide the most influence on marketability being that personality va riables consistently demonstrate robust relationships with other impor tant organizational concepts, e.g., performance. Proactive career behaviors were entered fourth into the equation becau se they were deemed the next most important variables to influence marketability since they are within direct control of the individual. Career developm ent environment was entered into the equation fifth because oneÂ’s environment is likely to contribute to marketability, yet not as strongly as behaviors or persona lity. Finally, industry charac teristics were entered into the equation last because, although they were pr edicted to relate to marketability, they had less empirical and theoretical eviden ce to suggest that they would predict marketability. Results of regression anal yses are presented in Tables 3 and 4.
53 Table 3 Results of Regression Analyses on Self-Reported Internal and External Marketability Standardized Regression Coefficients Internal Marketability External Marketability Variables Step 1: Control Variables Job Tenure -.08* -.08Â† Race -.08* .16*** R2 .01Â† .02** Step 2: Human Capital Age -.10* -.12* Education .04 .10* R2 .01Â† .03** Step 3: Positivity Traits Optimism .07 .04 Positive Self-Concept .08 .12* Learning Goal Orientation .02 .09* R2 .15*** .11*** Step 4: Proactive Career Behaviors Internal Networking .15*** .14** External Networking .14** .13* Contacts in other Functions -.06 .02 Contacts in Higher Levels .05 .04 Development Courses -.12* -.02 Hours in Courses .03 .03 Development Plans .03 .00 Job Mobility Preparedness -.06 .03 R2 .08*** .07*** Step 5: Career Development Environment Mentor -.02 .03 Career Encouragement at Wo rk .21*** .02 Non-work Career Support -.03 .14** Development Resources Available .15*** .09* R2 .12*** .03** Step 6: Industry Characteristics Organizational Prestige .01 .01 Corporate Reputation .32*** .00 R2 .08*** .00 Total R2 .45 .27 Note Â† p < .10. p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Listwise N = 416; Beta weights presented were obtained from the final equation.
54 Table 4 Results of Regression Analyses on Co-worke r Reported Internal and External Marketability Standardized Regression Coefficients Internal Marketability External Marketability Variables Step 1: Human Capital Age -.04 .02 Education .07 .07 R2 .00 .01 Step 2: Positivity Traits Optimism .15Â† -.11 Positive Self-Concept -.00 .18Â† Learning Goal Orientation -.06 -.03 R2 .03 .02 Step 3: Proactive Career Behaviors Internal Networking -.03 -.07 External Networking .02 .05 Contacts in other Functions -.10 -.14 Contacts in Higher Levels -.00 .14 Development Courses -.10 -.16 Hours in Courses .14 -.03 Development Plans .05 .18Â† Job Mobility Preparedness -.09 .09 R2 .05 .04 Step 4: Career Development Environment Mentor .01 .01 Career Encouragement at Work .10 .00 Non-work Career Support -.07 .05 Development Resources Available -.01 -.05 R2 .01 .00 Step 5: Industry Characteristics Organizational Prestige -.09 -.12 Corporate Reputation .12 .04 CR Corporate Reputation .23** .14Â† R2 .05* .02 Total R2 .15 .09 Note Â† p < .10. p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Listwise N = 176; Beta weights presented were obtained from the final equation.
55 Self-Reported Internal Marketability. The liner combination of all predictors and control variables was significantly related to internal marketability R2 = .45, F (21, 463) = 17.72, p < .001. Contrary to correlation results, age significantly related to internal marketability, whereby youth predicted per ceptions of internal marketability ( = -.10, p < .05). When controlling for th e effects of the other variable s, education did not predict internal marketability. None of the positivity traits of optimism, positive self-concept or learning goal orientation predic ted internal marketability. However, the change in R squared for that step was significant: R2 change = .15, F (3, 477) = 28.14, p < .001. Of the proactive career beha viors, internal networking ( = .15, p < .001) and external networking ( = .14, p < .01) positively predicted internal marketability, while, development courses negatively predicted internal marketability ( = -.12, p < .05). Of the career development environment variables entered in step 5, career encouragement at work ( = .21, p < .001) and development resources available ( = .15, p < .001) each accounted for significant variance in inte rnal marketability. Of the industry characteristics, corporate re putation significantly predicted internal marketability ( = .32, p < .001). Self-Reported Exter nal Marketability. Similar to the internal marketability regression findings, the liner combination of all predictors and control variables was significantly related to external marketability R2 = .27, F (21, 463) = 7.97, p < .001. Of the human capital variables, both age and e ducation contributed si gnificant variance to external marketability. As predicted, youth ( = -.12, p < .05) and greater education ( = .10, p < .05) related to the de pendent variable.
56 Contrary to the results for internal marketability, positive self-concept and learning goal orientation each contributed uni que variance to prediction of external marketability. Those with greater positive self-concepts ( = .12, p < .05) and learning goal orientation ( = .09, p < .05) were more likely to also ha ve greater ratings of internal marketability. Similar to the intern al marketability findings, internal ( = .14, p < .01) and external networking ( = .13, p < .05) each accounted for significant variance in external marketability. Non-work support for career develo pment uniquely pred icted external marketability ( = .14, p < .01) yet career encouragement at work did not. This indicates that support from family and friends predicts extent of oneÂ’s marketability outside of oneÂ’s current job. Developmental resour ces available also predicted external marketability ( = .09, p < .05). Finally, neither industr y characteristic (organizational prestige or corporate reputa tion) exhibited a relationship with external marketability when all other variables were in the equation. Co-worker Ratings of Marketability. The liner combination of predictors concerning co-worker ratings of internal marketability came close to reaching significance R2 = .15, F (20, 175) = 1.48, p = .092, but was not related to external marketability. Corporate reputation was th e only unique predictor of co-worker rated internal marketability ( = .23, p < .01).
57 Discussion The concept of marketability has become increasingly important to individuals over the years. Being marketable suggests sustaining a competitive advantage and having the ability and confiden ce to obtain a desirable job if needed. Due to recent economic changes, employees are gradually more responsible for their own career development and hence, their marketability. This study sought to uncover individual and situational factors that contribute to career ma rketability, address lim itations of past work in this area, and to advance marketability re search by using data from multiple sources. Overall results demonstrated that the higher-order groups of human capital, positivity traits, proactive behavior, career developmen t environment and industry characteristics all play a significant role in marketability. These findings were espe cially true for selfreport. Co-workers, on the other hand, were mo re likely to take positivity traits and industry characteristics than any other study va riables into consideration when assessing their colleaguesÂ’ degree of marketability. Only limited support was found for many of the hypothesized relationships between predic tors and marketability using co-worker ratings. Selfand Other Ratings of Inter nal and External Marketability. It was necessary to first establish conve rgent and discriminate validity of the marketability scales to ensure that they we re tapping what was intended. As expected, self-reported internal marketability was significantly related to co-worker reported
58 internal marketability but not related to co-w orker reported external marketability. Selfreported external marketability was significantly related to co-worker reported external marketability but not related to co-worke r internal marketability. These results demonstrate that both the participant and the co-worker were assessing participant internal or external marketability. Human Capital Human capital variables such as age and education have been known to increase an employeeÂ’s worth to an employer and in fluence career advancement (Judge et al., 1995). Investments in education, for example, have been consistently linked to rewards like greater salary and promotions (Barte l, 1995; Becker, 1993; Judge et al., 1995). Education attainment has great implications to marketability seeing that more educated individuals have less difficu lty finding work and becoming reemployed after job loss (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). The current study hypothesized that those with higher levels of education would report higher levels of internal and external marketability. As expected, education was significan tly related to both internal and external marketability. These results help to corroborate what we understand from human capital theory. Organizations probably view empl oyees with higher levels of e ducation as assets to their company, while such employees are probabl y more likely to secure desirable employment than those with less education. This study suggested that older individuals would have lower perceptions of their internal and external market ability than younger individuals This hypothesis was based on passed literature and theory (London, 1990) Some compelling empirical support for this proposition has already been established. In a study of job search behavior of
59 employed managers, older in dividuals were more likely than were their younger counterparts to indicate that they had fewer job alterna tives (Bretz, et al., 1994). Likewise, younger workers provided higher rati ngs of self-assessed employability when compared to older workers in a study of middle and high level employees (Van der Heijden, 2002). Both studies assessed marketab ility in terms of potential job alternatives outside oneÂ’s currently job. This distinction is an important one. People who have already secured employment may be more c onfident about maintaining that employment than they are about gaining new employment elsewhere. The current study proposed that older workers would demonstrate less confidence about their internal and external marketability. A negative relationshi p was found between age and external marketability. However, age was not significan tly correlated to internal marketability. One possible explanation for this finding is that, stronger age stereotypes are more likely to exist for obtaining new employment outside ones current workplace. Older workers in this study may have felt confid ent about their marketability at their current job, but may have felt less certain about being able to gain new employment elsewhere. Contrary to expectations, there was no relationship between age and co-worker rated marketability. The multitude of re search on age stereotypes overwhelmingly reports that older employees are more likel y to have less training dollars committed to their development (Becker, 1993), are more lik ely to be forced into early retirement (Bailey & Hansson, 1995; London, 1996) and are mo re likely to be discriminated against than younger workers. It is reasonable to pr esume that it is the senior workersÂ’ coworkers or supervisors who may hold such discriminatory viewpoints. Consequently,
60 they were expected to provide lower rati ngs of marketability for older workers. However, people in general are likely to know who in the organization supports and respects them. Participants were given inst ructions to select one colleague with whom they work closely, and who was most familiar with their work style. In making this selection, participants most lik ely chose a co-worker that they trusted and liked. Close confidants at work would probably be less lik ely to hold discriminatory attitudes towards their colleagues. This rationalization may help to explain the null finding between age and co-worker reports of marketability. Positivity Traits Optimistic people essentially believe that good things will happen to them. Hence, employees who scored high on optimism were expected to perceive themselves as more marketable. They were expected to beli eve in their ability to attain and maintain rewarding employment. Preliminary suppor t for this hypothesis had been found in a longitudinal study of laid-off i ndividuals, whereby optimists reported greater prospects for future employment (Leana & Feldman, 1995). Research was needed to investigate the relationship between optimism and marketab ility in a sample of working individuals not immediately threatened with job loss. In the current study, optimism was positively related to internal and external marketabi lity. This finding highli ghts the importance of maintaining a positive outlook on career marketability. More optimistic people were also expected to be perceived by others as more marketable. Results indicated that co-wor kers took optimism into account when rating their colleague on internal marketability but not external marketability. Being that the dyad worked together at the same organi zation, co-workers may have witnessed the
61 effects of the participantÂ’s op timism first hand. Since they had the opportunity to observe the participant they also were likely to apprec iate his/her internal marketability directly. Conversely, it may have simply been more di fficult for co-workers to generalize what they observed in the participant to other jobs outside their work place. Positive self-concept, comprising self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control and low neuroticism, was expected to relate to in ternal and external marketability. Recall that positive self-concept differs from optimism; positive self-concept concerns evaluations about oneself while optimism concerns eval uations about the outcomes of external events. This study found that individuals higher on positive self -concept were more likely to perceive themselves as internally and externally marketable than those lower on positive self-concept. Research has demonstrated relationships between positive selfconcept and job satisfaction, job performa nce, life satisfactio n, motivation and job attainment (Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge et al., 2000; Judge et al., 2003). The results of the current study are consistent with this growing body of research. Learning goal orientation was expected to predict marketability because it is linked to persistence and development Â– tw o important components for gaining and maintaining worthwhile employment. Recall th at learning goal orie nted individuals are motivated by challenge and enjoy exerting effort and persisting on difficult tasks. Results indicated that those who were high on learni ng goal orientation repor ted greater internal and external marketability than those low on learning goal orientation. This finding is consistent with expectations especially sinc e learning goal orientation has been linked to participation and persistence in training activ ities and is related to performance.
62 Contrary to expectations, learning goal orientation wa s not related to co-worker assessed internal or external marketability. This finding was quite su rprising in light that behaviors associated with l earning goal orientation should be directly observable to others. In this case, two plausible explanati ons may shed light on the findings. Either the co-workers were not aware of their colleagueÂ’s goal orientation or perhaps they did not make the connection between goal orientation and marketability. Future research is needed to determine if lear ning goal orientation can be su ccessfully assessed by others and if so, whether other-ratings of goal or ientation are associated with the same constructs as self-asses sed goal orientation. Proactive Career Behaviors. It was expected that networking behavior would relate to internal and external marketability. As predicted, networking be haviors taking place within an employeeÂ’s job, networking behaviors taking place outside the current job, the number of contacts the employee has in departments different from his/her own, and the number of contacts he/she has in higher organizational levels, each positively related to both internal and external marketability. These results replicate and extend the findings of Eby et al.(2003) that found that extent of networks within a nd outside the organizati on relate to internal and external marketability. C onsistent with expectations, co-workers did not take the participantsÂ’ networking behavi ors in to account when maki ng ratings of internal or external marketability. They were not expected to be familiar with the depth or scope of networking activities pe rformed by their colleagues and hence probably would not take networking into consideration when ma king judgments of marketability.
63 An interesting finding was the effect of voluntary participation in development on marketability. It was expected that partic ipation in development (consisting of, number of development courses taken, the amount of time spent on development, and future plans for development) would relate to both intern al and external market ability. Surprisingly, each indicator of participation in devel opment significantly related to external marketability yet not to internal marketab ility. This finding implies that taking workrelated classes and seminars may be likely to improve ones chances of gaining employment outside ones current workplace. The question that still remains is why would voluntary participation in development not assist in market ability within oneÂ’s current place of work as well? There ar e several possible explanations for these unexpected findings. First, it is possible that individuals are more likely to practice these behaviors solely for the purposes of enhancing their external marketability. They may be less concerned with appearing marketable a nd impressing their current employer, since they already possess the job. A sense of secu rity at their current job may prevent them from participating in development for the pur pose of being more Â‘v alue-addedÂ’ to their present employer. They may regard participa tion in development as activities that are used to enhance ones marketability to outside companies. Likewise, participation in development may simply have a greater impact on external marketability than on internal marketability. This is especially true if th e individual is participating in development for the purpose of changing jobs. For example, an individual may want to change jobs because she is feeling plateaued. She doe s not feel that there is any room for advancement at her current organization. Thus, she conducts a job search only to discover that her skills are in need of updating. She particip ates in development with the
64 intention of one day leaving he r current job for one with grea ter rewards. This study did not explicitly inquire about the participants Â’ reasons for participation nor did the study ask about intentions to leave the company. Fu ture research in this area is needed to reveal potential linkages among th ese variables. Results for job mobility preparedness were similar to those of participation in development. The construct was related to external marketability but not internal marketability. This finding is less surprising since job mobility preparedness behaviors are developmental activities that are more closely linked with fi nding new employment. Although the behaviors associated with job mobility preparedness should also benefit ones current internal marketability, upda ting ones resume and checking job postings (whether internal or external) are behavior s most often associated with external job hunting and thus external marketability. Th ese findings imply that individuals may not be using these valuable activities as a means of advancing in their own organizations. Career Development Environment. Mentoring is associated with numerous car eer benefits for the protg, such as higher salaries and promotions and greater ca reer satisfaction (see Allen et al., 2004 for a review). This study added to the list of adva ntages associated with having a mentor by demonstrating a positive relationship between protg status and in ternal and external marketability. This result differed somewhat fr om that of Eby et al. (2003) that found a relationship between protg status and external market ability but not internal marketability. As mentioned earlier, Eby et al. (2003) explained the result by suggesting that mentors have less impact on marketability within the company. This was not the case for the current research.
65 The present studyÂ’s finding implies that me ntoring received contributed to the enhancement of the protgÂ’s internal and exte rnal marketability. However, because this study is correlational, it is not possible to establish the direction of causality. Nevertheless we posit that it is most likely bi-directional. For in stance, individuals may seek mentors because they believe that having a mentor will lead to increased marketability. Mentors introduce protgs to significant individuals inside of the organization; they expose protgs to importa nt projects and they provide their protgs with challenging assignments to help increase the protgÂ’s visibili ty. These behaviors should influence marketability. However, it is also entirely plausible for highly marketable individuals to have sought out mentor s. This is possible especially in light of the recent praise that mentoring has been rece iving in research and in the popular press. Contrary to expectations, co-worker a ssessments of internal and external marketability were not related to protg st atus. Co-workers may not have taken the participantÂ’s mentorship into consideration when making ratings of marketability because mentorships are often personal relationships be tween the protg and mentor. Individuals outside this dyad may not be aware of the ma gnitude of the relationship nor the benefits offered to the protg. Although career encouragement at work wa s expected to relate to marketability inside the workplace and development support from family and friends was expected to predict marketability outside of work, both career encouragement at work and outside the workplace (non-work support for development) yielded positive relationships with internal and external marketability. Recall that career encouragement was delivered by superiors and colleagues at work and was organization specific A sample item was,
66 Â‘Have colleagues at the same level as you encouraged you in your career development (e.g., in promotion or advancement within your organization)?Â’ Non-work support for development on the other hand was more genera l, Â‘Members of my family are supportive of me learning new things that improve my car eer skillsÂ’. One simple explanation for the finding might be spillover. Encouragement for promotion and advancement at work should influence internal marketability most, but the positive effect s are likely to spill over to external marketability. Clearly, promotion and advancement have positive effects on marketability, regardless of whether it is targeted toward oneÂ’s current job or externally. Likewise, non-work support may also have positive influences on both career development at work and career developmen t for the purpose of finding new work. Finally, it is important to note that since the data are correla tional, we can not be certain of the direction of causality. It is plausibl e that individuals high on marketability sought out career encouragement and development suppor t from others. Additional research is needed to explore these possibilities. Th e hierarchical regre ssion discussion below provides further insight into the career encouragement Â– marketability debate. In addition to having a mentor, caree r encouragement at work, and non-work support, the participantÂ’s car eer development environment was also assessed. This consisted of having learning and developm ent resources available to the employee through his/her employer. Resources available were hypothesized to relate to self and coworker reports of internal and external mark etability. As predicted, resources available were positively related to se lf-reported internal and exte rnal marketability. These findings are notable because although past research has demonstrated a relationship between resources available and actual par ticipation in training and development, no
67 research to date has demonstrated a re lationship between resources and employee marketability. Knowing that th is relationship exists has implications for selecting an organization for which to work. It seems r easonable that employees favor organizations that offer a greater number of developmental resources over those that offer less. Nevertheless, the data was co rrelational and it is possibl e that individuals higher in marketability self-selected such companies to work for as opposed to the organization contributing to the individualÂ’s marketability. A longitudinal study is needed to further clarify these relationships. Additionally, co-workers provided higher ratings of internal marketability to participants who indicat ed greater developmental resources. Developmental resources offered to the partic ipant are probably also offered to the coworker being that they work t ogether at the same organizati on. In any event, co-workers seemed to have taken developmental resources provided by the company into consideration when making judgm ents of how marketable the participant was within the organization. Industry Characteristics Social identity theory suggests that indi viduals may form an opinion of a personÂ’s character based on his or her organizationa l affiliation (Dutto n & Dukerich, 1991). Employees working at prestigious organiza tions may perceive themselves and be perceived by others as more marketable than those employed at less prestigious organizations. Likewise, working for an or ganization with a favorable reputation may benefit a job seeker looking for new employment In this study, pe rceived organizational prestige signified what th e participants thought outs iders believed about their organization. In addition, self-reported a nd co-worker-reported corporate reputation were
68 used as indicators of the companyÂ’s perceive d standing. As expect ed, a relationship was found between organizational prestige and self-r ated internal and exte rnal marketability. Contrary to expectations, there was no relationship between co-worker assessed marketability and organizational prestige. Corporate reputation e xhibited a significant relationship with self-assessed internal and ex ternal marketability, as well as co-worker assessed internal marketability. Finally, co -worker assessments of corporate reputation exhibited a significant relationship with co-w orker reported internal marketability. As discussed earlier, it is believed that the su ccess associated with an organization can be, to some extent, transferred to the employee (D utton & Dukerich, 1991). The present study is the first to test the relationship betw een company reputation and marketability. Overall, the result s are supportive. Regression Analyses Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to measure the unique variance contributed by the study variables on ea ch of the dependent variables. Control variables were entered into the equations fi rst, followed by each block of higher-order groups of variables entered in sequence of theoretical influence on the dependent variables. Self-reported marketability. As expected, age negatively predicted both internal and external marketability. Youth was re lated to higher internal and external marketability ratings when all of the other va riables of interest were entered into the equation together. Surprisingl y this finding was contrary to correlation results which revealed a significant relationship between ag e and external marketability exclusively. Past literature and research in this area suggests that olde r workers are more likely to
69 perceive themselves and be perceived as less able to attain employment than are their younger counterparts (Brenner & Bartell, 1983; Prussia et al., 2 001; Vinokur & Schul, 2002; Warr & Jackson, 1984). However, it is also feasible that this relationship is more prominent in job seekers than in worki ng employees. Although regression results demonstrate that older workers perceive them selves as less marketable both within and outside the workplace, research is needed to determine if the phenomenon is more prominent for older job seekers than for olde r employed individuals in general. Interestingly, regressions results reve aled that education predicted external marketability but not internal marketability. Education is perhaps the most important human capital variable. It has been re ported to predict career attainment and reemployment after job loss (Austin & Vanc ouver, 1996; Becker, 1993). However, these results imply that individuals may not fully appreciate the importa nce of education in furthering their careers at their current organi zations. Perhaps increa ses in education are more saliently associated with enhancing ex ternal marketability. Likewise, rewards for furthering oneÂ’s education may be greater externally, especi ally in organizations where promotions are rare or seniority based. None of the positivity traits (optimism, positive self-concept and learning goal orientation) uniquely predicted internal market ability when entered into the equation with all other study variables. However, the change in R squared for that step was significant, indicating that together, the positivity traits ex plained variance in internal marketability. Positive self-concept and learning goal orient ation each explained significant variance in external marketability. Contrary to co rrelation results, optimism did not exhibit a relationship with external marketability.
70 Of the proactive career behaviors, only internal and external networking demonstrated significant positive relationships with internal and external marketability. Perhaps the most intriguing regression findi ng was that the number of development courses taken negatively related to internal ma rketability. That is, the more classes taken, the less likely the individual feels that they can advance at the company. Exploration into the reasons for participation may help to provi de a plausible explanat ion for this finding. Individuals may participate in development to improve their chances of obtaining new employment outside the organization because th ey feel that there is little room for advancement and that they are not internally marketable. Additional research is needed to further examine these assumptions. Mentoring did not add unique variance to in ternal or external marketability in the regression analyses. Findings for career encouragement at work and non-work support for career development produced interesting results that help to clarify the correlation findings reported earlier. R ecall that both variables exhibite d bivariate correlations with both internal and external marketability. This finding was peculiar since career encouragement at work primarily concerned support from co-workers and superiors for career development within the organization. Non-work s upport for develo pment, on the other hand, was encouragement received from family and friends for developing career skills in general. Consequently, career encour agement at work was expected to relate to internal marketability and non-work support was expected to relate to external marketability. These propositions were fully supported by regression analyses. Career encouragement at work explained significant variance in internal marketability while non-work support did not. Non-work support, in contrast, explaine d significant variance
71 in external marketability, while career encouragem ent at work did not. These results suggest that career support on the job is more likel y to provide benefits on the job whereas career support received off the job is more likely to impact ones career outside the current workplace. This finding highlight s the value of receivi ng career support from multiple sources. Finally, of the career development environment variables, development resources available explained significant variance in both internal and external marketability. Contrary to correlation results, organi zational prestige did not explain unique variance in marketability when entered into the equation with the other independent variances. Equally perplexi ng, corporate reputation explai ned significant variance in internal marketability but not external mark etability. As mentioned earlier in this manuscript, it has been suggested that work ing for an organization with a favorable impression benefits individuals who are being considered for other jobs. This implies a relationship between organizational st anding (prestige or reputation) and external marketability. However, corporate reputation should also contribute to ones internal marketability because companies with more favorable reputations are known to promote the development of their employees. In f act, many organizations gain such favorable reputations specifically because of their commitment to developing their workers. Co-worker reported marketability. Regression results for co-worker assessments of internal and external marketability were far less stimulating. Neither human capital variables nor career development environment variables explained significant variance in co-worker assessed internal or external marketability. Finally, co-worker reported corporate reputation explaine d significant variance in inte rnal marketability.
72 Results of these regression analyses were useful as they demonstrated the unique variance each independent variable had on th e dependent variables while controlling for all other variables. Consider ed along side the correlation results, they help to offer a more complete picture of the re lations among study variables. Theoretical Implications The present study confirms se veral of the suggestions and findings from previous literature and research. Resu lts of this study are valuable because they extend past research by presenting a more comprehensive model of marketability. This study also answers several calls made by Eby and her coll eagues (2003). First, the authors called for additional research on the predictors of marketability. This study examined predictors from past research and inco rporated new predictors, such as corporate reputation. Second, Eby et al. (2003) recognized the need for additional research to be conducted employing their newly created networking scale in order to add to what is known about the measureÂ’s psychometric properties. Li kewise, the present st udy took the opportunity to lengthen and improve upon Eby et alÂ’s orig inal internal and ex ternal marketability scales. Factor analyses pr ovided support for the modified scales used. This study also addressed two limitations found in the previous study. First, this study did not rely solely on self-report. Internal and external mark etability and corporate reputation were each measured from two different sources to overcome problems associated with common method variance. Finally, Eby et al. note that their sample was homogeneous with respect to age, education leve l, and race. Fortunately, we were able to obtain a very diverse sample by strategically recruiting from various pr ofessional internet groups.
73 Diversity with respect to age proved fundame ntal in this study being that age was a robust predictor of marketability. The conceptual model of the theoretical predictors of marketability portrayed a novel way of presenting marketabilityÂ’s nomolog ical network. Fu rther theory building on marketability should c onsider its use. Applied Implications Results of the present study yielded pr actical implications for individuals and employers. Although this study did not demons trate a relationship be tween marketability and true job attainment, the reemployment lite rature suggests that perceptions of oneÂ’s marketability predict actual employment af ter job loss. In a longitudinal study of manufacturing employees, individuals with higher expectations of their future employability were more likely than those with lower expectations to have found a job 18 months after displacement (Pru ssia, et al., 2001). While no studies to date have examined the causal link between perceptions ma rketability and true job attainment in a sample not threatened by job loss, Prussia, et alÂ’s (2001) research provides some insight into the possible relationship. Individuals should understand that they ha ve control over th eir marketability. They should have confidence in knowing that th ere are proactive steps they can take to bolster their marketability. It is not a stagnant trait, but is flexible and varies depending on several individual and situational characteristics. Especially in light of the current economyÂ’s effects on the job market, it is importa nt to not be passive about oneÂ’s career. Individuals may use the information provide d in this study as a starting point to developing and promoting their marketabilit y. Although this study was correlational and
74 did not demonstrate direct cause and eff ect relationships between the independent variables and marketability, in dividuals should utilize the mode l of theoretical predictors of marketability to recognize the different groups of variables that potentially predict marketability. They can then identify the va riables that are within their control and develop a plan for enhancing their marketabilit y. For example, in th is study we learned of a relationship age and marketability. Indi viduals can do nothing to modify their age, but they can focus on improving malleable feat ures such as educa tion and networking. Organizations can benefit from this studyÂ’ s findings as well. It is important for employers to realize that individuals are conc erned with both their internal and external marketability and they take proactive steps to cultivate them. Several points should be noted. First, career encouragement at work uniquely predicted inte rnal marketability. Since employers value having internally market able workers, they should foster climates of verbal support and encouragement by reward ing such behaviors from co-workers and supervisors. Secondly, numb er of development classes ta ken correlated with external marketability yet not internal marketability. Also, number of deve lopment classes taken negatively predicted internal marketability in regression analyses. Although there may be several plausible explanations for these findings, one possibil ity is that individuals are participating in development because they feel that they are not marketable within their organizations. Consequently employers s hould appreciate the importance of providing opportunities for advancement (and hence oppor tunities to increas e oneÂ’s internal marketability) to their best employees as a means of preventing turnover. Finally, job mobility preparedness was negatively related to both self-reported and co-worker reported corporate reputation. Recall that j ob mobility preparedne ss consists of updating
75 oneÂ’s resume, checking job postings and networ king for the purposes of furthering oneÂ’s career. These behaviors, although very bene ficial for employees of today, may seem threatening for employers trying to mainta in their workforce. Understanding the relationship between job mobility preparedne ss and corporate reputation suggests that employees may perform less of these behaviors if they worked for organizations that they regarded as prestigious or hi ghly reputable. Fortunately, orga nizations can take proactive steps in improving their reputations. Mainta ining better community relations, presenting greater opportunities for employee growth, a nd being more innovative are just a few ways companies can enhance their reputati ons and possibly increas e employee pride in the company and prevent workers from searching for jobs elsewhere (Cable & Grahm, 2000). Limitations and Future Research Limitations of the current study should be noted. The study wa s cross-sectional; all data were collected from a single point in time. Consequently, causality should not be inferred from the correlations that were us ed to test the studyÂ’s hypotheses. As discussed, several alternative e xplanations of the findings pr esented are plausible. For example, it is possible that marketable i ndividuals sought out mentors rather than mentoring making a contribution to individualsÂ’ marketability. However, variables such as age, optimism, positive self-concept, a nd learning goal orientation are considered stable variables and hence unlikely to be caused by marketability. While several of the studyÂ’s hypotheses were supported, many of the effects sizes were small. For example, the correlation between education and se lf-reported internal marketability was only r = .10 and the correla tion between age and self-reported external
76 marketability was only r = -.11. Consequentl y, the small effect sizes obtained in this study limit the practical use of recommenda tions concerning such variables. Although this study employed multi-source ratings, much of the data received was self-report. Significant rela tionships found may be due, in part, to common method variance. Future research should make an atte mpt at obtaining Â‘other -ratingsÂ’ of a greater number of variables. Sample attrition presented another limita tion for this study. This was especially true for the co-worker population. Less than ha lf of the original participants obtained ratings from a colleague. In some instances, the participant did not provide a code, or the code was provided but the co-worker did not go to the website, or the co-worker went to the website, entered the code, but did not co mplete the survey. On the whole, probable reasons for these losses were difficult to pi npoint. Some potential causes include, loss of interest, insufficient time, email or internet failur es, lack of trust of the online process etc. One indication of the participantsÂ’ motive to have his/her colleague provide ratings was the participantsÂ’ self-concept. Recall that those with low self-concepts were less likely to provide a code. Although intui tive, more research is need ed to confirm these findings and explain why individuals with high self-concept may be more willing to be rated by others. Another limitation of this study was that participants were permitted to select whomever they wished to complete their co-worker ratings. A lthough they were given specific instructions on obtaining a rater w ho was best able to provide reliable information about them, participants may have simply selected individuals whom they thought would provide the most favorable ratin gs. Future research assessing self and
77 other ratings of marketability may consider obtaining all data from supervisors rather than providing the participan t with a choice. Of course this method presents more problems (e.g., individuals may be less likely to participate for fear th at their supervisors will learn about their job sear ch activities, etc.) however, the data might be more trustworthy. Future research exploring the predictors of marketability should consider the inclusion of several unexplored variables. For example, knowing whether or not the participant intends to leave the company would have provided a dditional explanatory power in this study. Recall that particip ation in development courses negatively predicted internal marketability. It would have been worthwhile to ascertain the role of Â‘intent to leaveÂ’ in this relationship. Likewise, uncovering the motivations behind participation in development would have also provided insight this relationship. Each indicator of participation in development wa s correlated with external marketability, yet not internal marketability. Why wouldnÂ’t participation in development also relate to internal marketability? Individuals may have been participating in development with the intent of increasing their app eal to outside organizations. Conversely, their intent may have simply been to update their skills. The current study was unable to verify these points. It would also be interesting to test whether individuals high on external marketability actually are more likely to vol untarily turn over. As Eby et al.(2003) suggested, external marketability may be asso ciated with greater opportunities elsewhere while internal marketability may be related (negatively) to involuntary job loss. Research is still needed to investigate these suppositions.
78 Another idea for future research is to examine the roles of job satisfaction and organizational commitment to internal and ex ternal marketability. Are individuals high on job satisfaction more likely to have greate r internal marketability than those low on job satisfaction? Does organizational comm itment moderate the relationship between participation in development and external ma rketability? Future research should continue to explore additional predictors of marketability. Quasi-experimental studies would provide needed insight into cause and effect relationship between the independent and depend ent variables examined in this research. For example, to determine if career encour agement causes marketability, one could study two similar departments within the same orga nization. One department would receive an intervention involving career development encouragement strategies. The other department would act as a placebo group and r eceive no treatment. One year after the intervention, scores on pre and post measures of marketability should be compared for both groups. Ensure that there are no signi ficant differences between the two groups on pre-test scores. Next, subtract post-test scores from the pre-te st scores for each group to observe the potential change. If the ch ange in score for the treatment group was significantly greater than that of the non-treatment group, we can say with some degree of certainty that the interv ention (career development enc ouragement) caused perceptions of marketability. The same method could be used to establish a causal link between mentoring and marketability by implementi ng a formal mentoring program for one department but not another. Although these examples are overly-simplified, they provide some future research suggestions that would help to confirm some of the present studyÂ’s findings. Longitudinal studies might also be valuable in ve rifying that the predictors do,
79 indeed, contribute to oneÂ’s marketability and th at perceptions of marketability do, in fact, predict actual job attainment. Conclusion The issues addressed in this manuscript will become increasingly more important as individuals progressively ha ve to rely on themselves for their career development and employability. This study extended past research regarding the predictors of marketability. It was the first study to utiliz e a sample of working adults recruited from internet professional listserves. As a result, the sample was diverse, highly educated and we believe, highly motivated to participate. This study was also the first to obtain coworker information on internal and external marketability and corporate reputation. A comprehensive model was presented a nd predictors were categorized into individual and situational char acteristics. Results dem onstrated the importance of human capital variables, positivity traits, proactive behaviors, the environment and industry characteristics to marketability. Th eoretical and practical implications were discussed and directions for fu ture research were suggeste d. The findings from this study make a valuable contribu tion to the careers literature and hopefully prompt further empirical research in the area.
80 References Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87 4974. Allen, P. (1990). Looking for work after forty: Job search experiences of older unemployed managers and professionals. Journal of Employment Counseling, 27 113-121. Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M., Lent z, L., & Lima, L. (2004).Career benefits associated with mentoring for protgs: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1) 127-136. Allen, T. D., Russell, J. E. A., Poteet, M. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1999). Learning and development factors related to percepti ons of job content and hierarchical plateauing. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20(7), 1113-1137 Arthur, M. b., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). Th e boundaryless career as a new employment principle. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career (pp. 3-20). New York: Oxford University Press. Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: structure process and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120 338-375. Bartel, A. P. (1995). Training wage growth and job performance: evidence from a company database. Journal of Labor Economics, 13(3), 401-425. Bailey, L. L, & Hansson, R. O. (1995). Psychol ogical obstacles to j ob or career change in late life. Journal of Gerontology: Ps ychological sciences, 50B 280-288. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14 103-118. Becker, G. (1993). Human capital (3rd edition). NY: National Bureau of Economic Research. Begley, T. M., Lee, C., & Czajka, J. M. (2000). The relationship of type A behavior and optimism with job performance and blood pressure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(2), 215-227.
81 Black, S. E. & Lynch, L. M. (1996). Hu man capital investment and productivity, The American Economic Review, 86(2), 263-267. Bove, R. (1987). Retraining the older worker. Training and Development, 4(3) 76-78. Brenner, S., & Bartell, R. (1983). The psychological impact of unemployment: A structural analysis of cross-sectional data. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56 129-136. Bretz, R. D., Boudreau, J. W., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Job search behavior of employed managers. Personnel Psychology, 47 275-301. Brown, K. G. (2001). Using computers to deliver training: Which employees learn and why? Personnel Psychology, 54 271-296. Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A concep tual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1) 26-48. Cable, D. M., & Graham, M. E. (2000). The determinants of job seekersÂ’ reputation perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 929-947. Carmeli, A., Freund, A. (2002). The relationship between work and workplace attitudes and perceived external prestige. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(1 ), 51-68. Cavanaugh, M. A., & Noe, R. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of relational components of the new psychological contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 323-340. Chiu, W. C. K., Chan, A. W., Snape, E ., & Redman, T. (2001). Age stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes towards older workers: An East-West comparison. Human Relations, 54(5) 629-661. Claes, R., & Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A. (1998). Influences of early career experiences, occupational group, and national culture on proactive career behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52 357-378. Cleveland, J. N. & Shore, L. M. (1992). Se lfand supervisory perspectives on age and work attitudes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4) 469-484. Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T.A. (1999). Five -year study of change in the relationship between well-being and job performance. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51 252-265.
82 Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T.A. (2001). Wh en a Â‘happyÂ’ worker is a Â‘productiveÂ’ worker: A review and further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis. Consulting Psychology Journal : Practice and Research, 53 182-199. Day, R., & Allen, T. D. (2004). The relations hip between career motivation and selfefficacy with protg career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64 72-91. Dennis, H. (1988). Fourteen steps in managing an aging work force Toronto: Lexington Books. Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comp arative study of mentoring men and women in managerial, professional and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5) 539-546. Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H. (2000). Labor market mobility and cash compensation: The moderating effects of race and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 890-900. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 239-263. 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. Eden, D., & Aviram, A., (1993). Self-efficacy training to speed reemployment: Helping people to help themselves. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 352-360. Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationships of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 1270-1279. Facteau, J.D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E. A., Ladd, R. T., & Kudisch, J. D. (1995). The influence of general percepti ons of the training environment on pretraining motivation and pe rceived training transfer. Journal of Management, 21 ,1-25. Fagenson, E. A., (1989). The mentor advant age: perceived career /job experiences of protgs versus nonprotgs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10 309320. Finkelstein, L. M., Burke, M. J., & Ra ju, N. S. (1995). Age discrimination in simulated employment contexts : An integrative analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(6) 652-663. Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Diffe rential effects of learning effort and goal orientation on two learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51 397-420.
83 Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A (1986). Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 571-579. Fombrum, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). Wh atÂ’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2) 233-258. Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2001). Correlates of networking behavior for managerial and professional employees. Group & Organizational Management, 26(3) 283-311. Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139-161. Fry, C. (1985). Culture, behavior and aging in the comparativ e perspective, In J. Birren & Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging 2nd Ed. (pp. 216-244). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Fryxell, G. E., & Wang, J. (1994). The Fortune corporate Â“reputationÂ” index: Reputation for what? Journal of Management, 20(1) 1-14. Gattiker, U. E., & Larwood, L. (1986). Subjectiv e career success: A study of managers and support personnel. Journal of Business & Psychology, 1(2) 78-94. Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2003). Aimi ng for career success: Th e role of learning goal orientation in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63 417-437. Gould, S. & Penley, L. E. (1984). Career st rategies and salary progression: A study of their relationships in a municipal bureaucracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 244-265. Gourman, J. (1997). The Gourman report of undergraduate programs, 10th Edition: A rating of undergraduate programs in America and international universities New York: The Princeton Review. Gourman, J. (1997). The Gourman report of graduate programs. New York: The Princeton Review. Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P.V. Marsden & N. Lin (eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp.105 Â– 130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
84 Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1993) Job performance attributes and career advancement prospects: An examination of gender and race effects. Organizational Behavior & Hum an Decision Processes, 55(2) 273-297. Greller, M. M, & Nee, D. M. (1990). Huma n resource planning for the inevitable Â– the aging workforce. In M. London, E. S. Bassman, & J. P. Fernandez, (Eds.), Human resource forecasting and strategy deve lopment: Guidelines for analyzing and fulfilling organizational needs (pp. 181-193). New York: Quorum. Hiltrop, J. (1995). The changing psychological contract: The human resource challenge of the 1990's. European Management Journal, 13(3) 286-294. Hall, D. T. (1996). Long live the career. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), The career is dead Â– long live the career, (pp. 1-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. (1995). The new career contract: Developing the whole person at midlife and beyond. Journal of Vocational Behavior 47 269-289. Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. (1996). The ne w protean career: Psychological success and the path with a heart. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), The career is dead Â– long live the career: A relational approach to careers (pp. 15-45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Howard, A. (1995). Rethinking the psychology of work. In A. Howard (Ed.), Changing nature of work, (pp. 511-555). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hurley, A. E., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1998). The effect of organi zational experience on managerial career attainment in an internal labor market. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52 172-190. Jaskolka, G., Beyer, J. M., Trice, H. M. (1985). Measuring and predicting managerial success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26 189-205. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 237-249. Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1995). An empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48 485-519. Judge, T. A., Erez. A., & Bono, J. E. (1998) The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11(2/3) 167-187. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thorese n, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56 303-331.
85 Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V ., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change : A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1) 107-122. Kanfer, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Individua l differences in successful job searches following lay-off. Personnel Psychology, 38 835-847. Kossek, E. E., Roberts, K., Fisher, S ., & Demarr, B. (1998). Career selfmanagement: A quasi-experimental assessm ent of the effects of a training intervention. Personnel Psychology, 51, 935-962. Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4) 608-625. Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Develo pmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Leana, C. R., & Feldman, D.C. (1990). I ndividual responses to job loss: Empirical findings from two field studies. Human Relations, 43(11) 1155-1181. Leana, C. R., & Feldman, D.C. (1995). Finding new jobs after a plant closing: Antecedents and outcomes of the occurre nce and quality of reemployment. Human Relations, 48 (12) 1381-1401. London, M. (1983). Toward a theory of career motivation. Academy of Management Review, 8, 620-630. London, M. (1990). Enhancing career motivation in late career. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 3(2) 58-71. London, M. (1996). Redeployment and continuous learning in the 21st century: Hard lessons and positive examples from the downsizing era. Academy of Management Executive.10(4) 67-79. London, M. (1998). Career barriers: How people experience, overcome, and avoid failure. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. London, M., & Maurer, T. J. (2003). Leader ship development: A diagnostic model for continuous learning in dynamic orga nizations. To appear in R. J. Sternberg, J. Antonakis, & A. T. Cianc ilo (Eds.). The nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. London, M., & Mone, E. M. (1999). Continuous Learning. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performan ce: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
86 London, M., & Noe, R. A. (1997). LondonÂ’s career motivation theory: An update on measurement and research. Journal of Career Assessment, 5(1) 61-80. Lounsbury, J. W., Loveland, J. M., & Gibson, L. W. (2002). An investigation of the job performance validity of optimism. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Society for Industr ial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA. Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and m eaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 695-706. Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R. M., & RosenKrantz, S. A. (1988). Real Managers Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Lyau, N., & Pucel, D. J. (1995). Economic return on training investment at the organization level. Performance Improvemen t Quarterly, 8(3), 68-79. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni a nd their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of orga nizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13 103-123. Malos, S. B., & Campion, M. A. (1995). An options-based model of career mobility in professional service firms. Academy of Management Review, 20 611-644. Maurer, T. J. (2001). Career relevant learning and deve lopment, worker age and beliefs about self-efficacy for development. Journal of Management, 27 123140. Maurer, T. J. (2002). Employee Learning a nd Development Orientat ion: Toward an integrative model of involveme nt in continuous learning. Human Resource Development Review, 1(1) 9-44. Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. A. (1994). Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome, and person variab les in relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 314. Maurer, T., J., Weiss, E. M., & Barbeite, F. G. (2003). A model of involvement in work-related learning and development ac tivity: The effects of individual, situational, motivational and age variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4) 707-724. Michael, J., & Yukl, G. (1993). Managerial level and subunit function as determinants of networking behavior in organizations. Group & Organizational Management, 18, 328-351.
87 Mirvis, P. H. & Hall, D. T. (1996). Career development for the older worker. In D. T Hall (Ed), The career is deadlong live the career (pp. 279-296). San Francisco: Jossy-Bass. Morrison, T. G., OÂ’Connor, W. E., Morrison, M. A., & Hill, S. A. (2001). Determinants of psychological well-being am ong unemployed women and men. Psychology and Education: An Interd isciplinary Journal, 38(1) 34-41. Noe, R. A. (1996). Is career management related to employee development and performance? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17 119-133. Noe, R. A. (1999). Employee training & development. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Noe, R. A., & Wilk, S. L. (1993). Inves tigation of the fact ors that influence employeesÂ’ participation in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 291-302. Orpen, C. (1995). The effects of ment oring on employeesÂ’ career success. Journal of Social Psychology, 135(5) 667-668. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Exploration and prediction (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace. Peluchette, J. V. E. (1993). Subjective car eer success: The influence of individual difference, family and or ganizational variables. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43 198-208. Podgursky, M., & Swai m, P. (1987). Job displacement and earnings loss: Evidence from the displaced worker survey. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 41 17-29. Potosky, D., & Ramakrishna, H. V. (2002). The moderatin g role of updating climate perceptions in the relationship between go al orientation, se lf-efficacy and job performance. Human Performa nce, 15(3) 275-297. Prussia, G.E., Fugate, M., & Kinicki, A.J. (2001). Exp lication of the coping goal construct: Implications for coping and reemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6) 1179-1190. Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1988). Managing older workers' careers. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 6 37-74. Roche, G. R. (1979). Much ado about mentors. Harvard Business Review 57, 14-28. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
88 Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and car eer mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13 169-174. Scheier, M. F. & Carver, C. S. (1985) Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4 219-247. Scheier, M. F. & Carver, C. S. (1992) Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical ov erview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16(2), 201-228. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridge s, M. W. (1994). Di stinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063-1078. Schiemann, W. A. (1990). Employee attitudes and human re source strategies. In M. London, E. S. Bassman, & J. P. Fernandez, (Eds.), Human resource forecasting and strategy development: Guidelines for analyzing and fulfilling organizational needs (pp. 53-73). New York: Quorum. Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M ., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 416-427. Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. ( 2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2) 219-237. Simpson, P. A., Greller, M., M., & Stroh, L. K. (2002). Variations in human capital investment activity by age. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61 109-138. Smidts, A., Pruyn, A., VanRie l, C. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1051-1062. Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y., & Fr ese, M. (2000). Why negative affectivity should not be controlled in job stress re search: DonÂ’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1) 79-95. Stagner, R. (1985). Aging in industry. In J. Birr en & K. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging 2nd ed. (pp. 789-817). Ne w York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Staw, B.M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes in the workplace. Organizational Science, 5 51-71.
89 Sterns, H. L., & Miklos, S. M. (199 5). The aging worker in a changing environment: Organizational and individual issues. Journal of Vocational Behavior 47, 248-268. Sujan, H., Weitz, B. A., Kumar, N. (19 94). Learning orientation, working smart, and effective selling. Journal of Marketing, 58 39-52. Swaim, P. & Podgursky, M. (1990). Advan ce notice and job sear ch: The value of an early start. Journal of Human Resources, 25 147-178. Tajfel, H. C., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social iden tity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Au stin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Tan, V., Cheatle, M. D., Mackin, S., Moberg, P.J., & Esterhai, J. L. (1997). Goal setting as a predictor of return to wo rk in a population of chronic musculoskeletal pain patients. International Journal of Neuroscience, 92 161170. Tharenou, P.(1997). Organizational, job, and personal predictors of employee participation in training and development. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(2 ), 111-134. Tharenou, P. (2001). Going up? Do traits and informal social processes predict advancing in management? Academy of Management Journal, 44(5) 1005-10-17. Tharenou, P., Latimer, S., & Conroy, D. (1994). How do you make it to the top? An examination of influences on womenÂ’s and menÂ’s managerial advancement. Academy of Managem ent Journal, 37(4), 899-931. Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1996). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3) 658-672. Turner, N., Barling, J., & Z acharatos, A. (2002). Positive psychology at work. In C.R. Snyder & S. J. Lopey (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology. (pp. 715-728) London: Oxford University Press. Van der Heijden, B. (2002). Prerequisites to guarantee life-long employability. Personnel Review, 31(1), 44-61. VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (1999). The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2) 249-259.
90 Van Ryn, M., & Vinokur, A. D. (1992). How did it work? An examination of the mechanisms through which an interv ention for the unemployed promoted job-search behavior. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20 577-597. Veiga, J. F. (1981). Plateaued versus nonplateaued managers: Career patterns, attitudes, and path potential. Academy of Manageme nt Journal, 24(3) 566-578. Veiga, J. F. (1983). Mobility influen ces during managerial career stages. Academy of Manageme nt Journal, 26(1) 64-85. Vinokur, A. D., & Schul, Y. (2002). The web of coping resources and pathways to reemployment following a job loss. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(1) 68-83. Waldman, D. A., & Avolio, B. J. (1986). A meta-analysi s of age differences in job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1 ), 33-38. Wanberg, C. R. (1995). A lo ngitudinal study of the effects of unemployment and quality of reemployment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46 40-54. Wanberg, C. R. (1997). Antecedents an d outcomes of coping behaviors among unemployed and reemployed individuals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5 ) 731-744. Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R. & Rotundo, M. (1999). Unemployed individuals: Motives, job search, competencies, and j ob-search constraints as predictors of job seeking and reemployment. Journal of Applie d Psychology, 84(6), 897-910. Wanberg, C. R., Watt, J. D ., & Rumsey, D. J. (1996). I ndividuals without jobs: An empirical study of job-seeking behavior and reemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 76-87. Warr, P., & Jackson, P. (1984) Men without jobs: Some correlates of age and length of unemployment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57 77-85. Waterman, R. H., Waterman J. A. & Collard, B. A. (1994). Toward a career resilient workforce. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 87-95. Waters, L. & Moore, K. (2002). Self-estee m, appraisal and coping: A comparison of unemployed and reemployed people. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 593-604.
91 Whitely, W., & Coetsier, P. (1993). The relatio nship of career mentor ing to early career outcomes. Organization Studies, 14(3) 419-441. Williams, R. L., Verble, J. S., Price, D. E ., & Layne, B. H. (1995). Relationship of selfmanagement to personality types and indices. Journal of Personality and Assessment, 64, 494-506. Wolf, G., London, M., Casey, J., & Pufahl, J. (1995). Career experience and motivation as predictors of training behaviors and outcomes for displaced engineers. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 47 316-331. Wright, T. A., & Staw, B. M. (1999). Affect and favorable work outcomes: Two longitudinal tests of th e happy-productive worker thesis Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 1-23.
93 Appendix A Professional Internet Listserves Solicited Professional Internet Listserves Solicited Listserves Members Activity Level 1. Accounting Net 586 Moderate 2. AERAa-E Human Development 557 Moderate 3. AERA-GSL Grad students 738 Low 4. AERA-K Teachers 967 High 5. ASSESS Assessment in Higher Ed 788 High 6. ASTDb Training (Discussion Board) N/A Moderate 7. Black Data Processors BDPA-NY 811 Moderate 8. Civil Engineer 1304 Moderate 9. EAWOP-L European Assoc. of Work Psy 533 Low 10. Eval Talk 2730 Low 12. HR Consultants 142 Low 13. HR DIV Net 800 High 14. HR Experts 410 High 15. HR Net 1308 Moderate 16. JAVA Computer Testing 1200 Low 17. Judgment and Decision Making Society N/A Moderate 18. Mechanical Engineering 1128 Low 19. MG-ED-DV Mangmt Edu Devel N/A High 20. ODc Net 1600 High 21. ODC Net N/A Moderate 22. Recruiters Network 1596 Low 23. ROI Net (HRD Professionals) 1431 Moderate 24. SIOPd Student Discussion List N/A High 25. STLHE-Le Teaching & Learning in Higher Ed 680 Moderate 26. Tech Republic N/A Moderate 27. TR Dev -Trainers and Developers 3314 High 28. Training Ideas 4404 Moderate 29. Young Journalists 908 Moderate TOTAL 22,623 a American Educational Rese arch Association b American Society for Traini ng and Development c Organization Development Network d Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology e Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Activity level. low: 0-5 messages per week moderate: 6-10 messages per week, high: more than 10 messages per week.
94 Appendix B Top 15 Most Common College or Gr aduate School Majors Reported Top 15 Most Common College or Graduate School Majors Reporteda Major n 1. Education 61 2. General Psychology 45 3. Business / Management 42 4. Computer Science / IT 20 5. Industrial Psychology / Org Development or Org Behavior 19 6. Library Science 18 7. Human Resources 17 8. Engineering 16 9. Social Work 15 10. Journalism 13 11. Counseling 12 12. Public Administration 11 13. English 10 14. Accounting 9 15. Medicine 5 Total 313 a Only the top fifteen most comm on majors are reported. Less popular majors (e.g., gerontology) were repo rted, but are not presented in this table.
95 Appendix C Top 15 Most Common Job Titles Reported Top 15 Most Common Job Titles Reporteda Job Title n 1. Directorb 41 2. Professor (Assistant, As sociate or Full) 36 3. Researcher (Research Associate, Coordinator, Fellow, etc.) 35 4. Human Resources Associate / Specialist 32 5. Project Manager 28 6. Psychologist 25 7. Librarian 18 8. Engineer 16 9. Executive 15 10. Computer Scientist 14 11. Social Worker 13 12. Reporter / Journalist / Editor 13 13. Teaching or Graduate Assistant 12 14. Training and Development Specialist / Manager 10 15. Physician 4 Total 312 a Only the top fifteen most common job titles are reported. Less popular job titles (e.g., family support worker) were reported, but are not presented in this table. b Director was followed by such titles as 'of Academic Affairs', 'of Client Relations', 'of Public Relations' etc.
96 Appendix D Initial Email Solicitation Dear Professionala: I'm Rachel Day, a PhD student at University of South Florida's Industrial and Organizational psychology program. I am conducting research for my doctoral dissertation on career development issues facing workers today. I am looking for working individuals to volunteer to participate in this research. Obtaining a large sample of individuals from different occupational backgrounds is exceptionally important to me. I would be eternally grateful if you decide to participate. Participation consists of completing a 10 mi nute online survey. The only requirement for participation is that you are currently working at least 30 hours per week. If you are ineligible to complete the survey, would you please pass this email along to someone you know who is employed full time? All responses will remain anonymous and conf idential. The survey is secure and uses SSL encryption for your protection. The method of data collection that I am using does NOT permit me access to your email address or any othe r personal or identifying information. When you have completed filling out this brief survey, you will be asked to email one of your coworkers. To increase the study's validity, it is important to get a second perspective on some of the measures. Your co-worker will simply be ask ed to answer a couple of harmless questions about you. This will take them no longer than 1 mi nute. I know this may seem like a lot to ask of you, but this step is crucial to the success of my dissertation research. I appreciate your support immensely! Here is the link to my survey: https://www.surveymonkeyÂ…. If you are unable to click on it, please copy and paste it into your browser. If you would like more information about the study or a summary of the study's results, please contact me via email: email@example.com. Again, your participation is greatly appreciated! Rachel Day, M.A. Doctoral Research Associate & Instructor Industrial & Organizational Psychology University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave. PCD 4118G Tampa, FL 33620 a When appropriate, the greeting would correspond w ith the type of professional being invited, e.g., Â“Dear Engineering ProfessionalÂ”, Â“Dear Human Resources ProfessionalÂ”, etc.
97 Appendix E Informed Consent on First Page of Web Survey. Thank you very much for volunteering to complete this survey. My name is Rachel Day and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Sout h Florida's Industrial Organizational Psychology PhD program in Tampa. I am conducting this stud y in fulfillment of my dissertation requirement. I am interested in career development issues facing today's workers. Factors that I am examining in this study include marketability, mentoring, personality and proactive career behaviors. This survey should take you no longer than 10 minutes to complete. If you decide to participate, your responses w ill be averaged with the responses of other participants. You may decide not to participate at any time or may skip any questions that make you feel uncomfortable. There are no risks involved in participati ng and all responses will remain anonymous and confidential. This survey is secure and uses SSL encryption for your protection. The method of data collection that I am using does NOT permit me access to your email address or any other personal or identifying information. I have one more very important favor to ask of you. When you have completed filling out this brief survey, you will be asked to email one of your coworkers or peers. To increase the study's validity, it is important to get a second perspec tive on some of the measures. Your co-worker will simply be asked to answer a couple of questions a bout you. This will take them no longer than 1 minute. I know this may seem like a lot to ask of you, but this step is crucial to the success of my dissertation research. I appreciate your support immensely! If you would like more information about the study or a summary of the study's results, please contact me via email: firstname.lastname@example.org. If you have questions about your rights as a pers on who is taking part in a research study, you may contact the Division of Research Compliance of the University of South Florida at (813) 974-5638. Authorized research personnel, employees of the Department of Health and Human Services, the USF Institutional Review Board and its staff, and other individuals, acting on behalf of USF, may inspect the records from this research project. Please click next if you agree to participate. NEXT
98 Appendix F ParticipantÂ’s Invitation Instructions for the Co-Worker on the Final Page of the Survey. Thank you very much for completing my survey and participating in this research study! Next, I would like to pose a couple of brief ques tions of someone who knows you and is very familiar with your work style. Remember that I simply need to gain a second perspective on some of my research questions. It would be ex ceptionally helpful to me if you do this. The person you select could be your supervisor or another individual who works closely with you at your organization. This person will be asked to complete a brief survey that will take no longer than ONE MINUTE to complete. Remember, their pa rticipation is essential to the success of this research. The person you select will not have acce ss to any of your survey responses at any phase of this study. Again, this data is being used strictly for research purposes. First, I need you to come up with a 5 character code that you will share with your co-worker via email. The code will be used to match your surv ey results with those of your co-worker during the analysis phase of this study. The 5 digit code can be any combination of letters and numbers and is not case sensitive. Here are some do's and don'ts: -Please be creative and choose something that others would not, e.g. 'sun76' or '8beer'. -Please DO NOT use the same character five times, e.g. '33333'. Would you please enter your 5 digit code in the box below: Instructions for email: Please COPY and PASTE the following text into the email to your co-worker and swap the name Jonathan Doe with your own name. Also, include your 5-digit code at the end of the email. Please don't forget these two important step s!! YOUR NAME AND YOUR 5-DIGIT CODE! Dear Co-Worker, You have been sent this email because Jonathan Doe, with whom you work, has voluntarily participated in a career development research study as part of my doctoral dissertation. As part of this research, it is necessary to get your opinion on some career related questions. Jonathan Doe has suggested that you would be best able to answer work related questions about him/her. In addition, we would like for you to answ er a couple of work-related survey questions. Filling out the survey should take no longer than 1 minute and is essential to the completion and success of this important research study. Your a ssistance in this research will help us to more clearly understand career development issues, incl uding the factors associated with staying marketable. Please click on the link below to co mplete this brief survey (please copy and paste the link into your browser if you are unable to cli ck on it). Next, simply enter the 5 digit pass code provided in this email when prom pted at the start of the survey. You may email me at: email@example.com with any questions about the research or for a summary
99 Appendix F (Continued) of the results. Please note that the survey is hoste d on a secure web site using SSL encryption for your protection. Your responses will remain comp letely anonymous and confidential. I thank you so much for your time and cooperation. Your participation is greatly appreciated!! Link: https://www.survey monkey.com/s.asp?u=9... Code: ________ Sincerely, Rachel Day, M.A. Industrial Organizational Psychology Doctoral Candidate University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave. PCD 4118G Tampa, FL 33620 You're all done! If you have any qu estions about the study or would like a summary of the results after the data has been analyzed, please feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thanks again for your participation. It is much appreciated!
100 Appendix G Participant Survey Scale items Participant Survey Scale Items ( Presented in this order ) Learning goal orientation scale. (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996). Response options: (1) = strongly di sagree to (7) = strongly agree. 1. The opportunity to do challenging work is important to me. 2. When I fail to complete a difficult task, I pl an to try harder the next time I work on it. 3. I prefer to work on tasks that force me to learn new things. 4. The opportunity to learn new th ings is important to me. 5. I do my best when IÂ’m working on a fairly difficult task. 6. I try hard to improve on my past performance. 7. The opportunity to extend the range of my abilities is important to me. 8. When I have difficulty solving a problem, I enjoy trying different approaches to see which one will work. Voluntary participation in deve lopment. (Noe & Wilk, 1993). Number of courses. (1) = none to (7) = 6 or more. 1. How many professional and personal de velopment workshops, management programs, seminars or courses have you a ttended in the past year on a voluntary basis? Number of hours. (1) = 0, (2) = 1-8, (3) = 9-16, (4 ) = 17-24, (5) = 25-32, (6) = 33-40, (7) = 41-48, (8) = 49-56, (9) = 57-64, (10) = 65 or more. 1. Give your best estimate of the number of hours you tend to spend in nonmandatory training and development act ivities each year. This includes programs, workshops, and seminars offered both in-house and externally offered. Future activities (Development plans). (1) = 0 to (8) = 7 or more. How many professional and personal developmen t courses do you plan on taking in the upcoming year? The Revised Life Orientation Test Optimism (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994). Response options: (1) = strongly di sagree to (5) = strongly agree. 1. In uncertain times, I us ually expect the best. 2. It is easy for me to relax. 3. If something can go wrong for me, it will.* 4. IÂ’m always optimistic about my future. 5. I enjoy my friends a lot. 6. ItÂ’s important for me to keep busy. 7. I hardly ever expect things to go my way.* 8. I donÂ’t get upset too easily. 9. I rarely count on good things to happen to me.* 10. Overall, I expect more good things to happen than bad. *These items were reverse scored prior to analyses.
101 Appendix G (Continued) Positive self-concept. (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003). Response options: (1) = strongly di sagree to (5) = strongly agree. 1. I am confident I get the success I deserve in life. 2. Sometimes I feel depressed.* 3. When I try, I generally succeed. 4. Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless.* 5. I complete tasks successfully. 6. Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my work.* 7. Overall, I am satisfied with myself. 8. I am filled with doubts about my competence.* 9. I determine what will happen in my life. 10. I do not feel in control of my success in my career.* 11. I am capable of coping with most of my problems. 12. There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to me.* Internal and External Networking Behavior Scales. (Eby et al., 2003) Response scale: (1) = strongly di sagree to (5) = strongly agree. Internal: 1. Co-workers say I know a lot of people within the organization. 2. I am well connected within the organization. 3. I have a lot of contacts within the organization. External: 4. I have extensive contacts within the industry in which I work. 5. Co-workers say I know a lot of people outside the organization. 6. I regularly network with individu als outside of my organization. 7. I do not have many professional contacts Contacts in other functions and Contacts in higher levels are adapted from Seibert, Kraimer, and Linden (2001). Response scale options are (1) = 0, (2) = 1, (3) = 2, (4) = 3, (5) = 4 or more. 8. Approximately how many work-related contacts do you have that work in departments different than your own? 9. Approximately how many work-related contacts do you have that work in higher organizational levels than you do? Mentorship. (Fagenson, 1992). Response: (1) = No, (2) = Yes. 1. Do you have a mentor? A mentor is an experienced employee who serves as a role model, provides support, direction and feedback regarding career plans and interpersonal development. A mentor is also someone who is in a position of power, who looks out for you, gives you advice and / or brings your accomplishments to the attention of pe ople who have power in the company. 2. Is your mentor also your supe rvisor? (1) = No, (2) = Yes.
102 Appendix G (Continued) 3. Does your mentor work at the same orga nization that you do? (1) = No, (2) = Yes. 4. Did you meet your mentor through a formal mentor program sponsored by your organization? (1) = No, (2) = Yes. Job mobility preparedness (Kossek, Roberts, Fi sher, & Demarr, 1998) Response options: 1 = not at all, 5 = a great deal, except where noted 1. How current is your resume? (scale: 1 = not at all current, 5 = very current). Over the past 6 months, to what extent have you: 2. Reviewed internal job postings? 3. Have you actively investigated internal job postings? 4. Have you discussed future job openi ngs within your internal network? 5. Have you discussed future job posti ngs within your external network? 6. Have you thought about what positi on you would like to have next? 7. To what extent do you actively seek out information about job opportunities outside the organization? 8. To what extent have you sought out any new personal connections at work in the past 6 mont hs for the purpose of furthering your career? 9. To what extent have you sought out any new personal connections outside of work for the purpose of furthering your career? Perceived organizational prestige scale (Smidts, Pruyn & Riel, 2001). Response options: (1) = strongly di sagree to (5) = strongly agree. 1. Compared to other companies in the same industry, our company is seen as a model/example. 2. Our organization has a good reputation. 3. Generally speaking, our customers ar e satisfied with our service. 4. Our organization is looked upon as a pr estigious company to work for. Career encouragement at work. (Tharenou, 2001). Responses options: (1) = never to (7) = six or more times. 1. Has a person more senior in position th an yourself encouraged you in your career development (e.g., in promotion or a dvancement within your organization)? 2. Have colleagues at the same level as you encouraged you in your career development (e.g., in promotion or a dvancement within your organization)? 3. Have you been encouraged by other to apply for, or express interest in, promotion when opportunities become available?
103 Appendix G (Continued) Corporate reputation. Based on Fortune MagazineÂ’s annual survey of AmericaÂ’s most admired corporations. Response opti ons: (1) = poor to (10) = excellent. How would you rate your company on each of the following attributes? 1. Quality of management 2. Quality of products or services 3. Long-term investment values 4. Innovativeness 5. Financial soundness 6. Ability to attract, develop and keep talented people 7. Community and environmental responsibility 8. Use of corporate assets Non-work social support for development. (Maurer et al., 2003) 8-items 1. Members of my family are supportive of my learning new things that improve my career skills. 2. Friends outside of work are supporti ve of my efforts to improve my career skills. 3. People I know Â“off-the-jobÂ” are suppor tive of my efforts to improve my career skills. 4. People I trust and confid e in (friends, family) are supportive of my efforts to improve my career skills. 5. Individuals I spend time with after wo rk are supportive of my efforts to improve and develop my career-relevant skills. 6. My family encourages me to believe that I can learn and improve at work. 7. Friends outside of work have persuaded me to think that I am capable of improving and developing my work skills. 8. People I trust (family, friends) have discouraged me from believing in my self when it comes to expanding my career skills.* Learning and development resources available. (Maurer et al., 2003) 3-items 1. There are learning and skill development resources available to me through my employer that can help me improve my career skills. 2. Skill development options or learning materials can be obtained by me that will assist in improvi ng my job/career skills. 3. There are no effective development options or resources available that can help me improve my career skills. Internal and external marketability (Modified scale is based on Johnson unpublished manuscript, 2001, as cited in Eb y, Butts, & Lockwood, 2003). Response options: (1) = strongly disagree to (5) = strongly agree.
104 Appendix G (Continued) Self-reported Internal Marketability 1. My company views me as an asset to the organization. (Eby et al.) 2. Given my skills and experience, the comp any that I work fo r views me as a value-added resource. (Eby et al.) 3. There are many opportunities available for me at this company. (Eby et al.) 4. I would be highly competitive if I chose to apply for other job opportunities at my current organization. (new item, Day, 2004) 5. I am confident that I could obtain a di fferent, but equally rewarding position within this company. (new item, Day, 2004) Self-reported External Marketability 1. I could easily obtain a comparable job with another employer. (Eby et al.) 2. There are many jobs available outside my current organization for me given my skills and experience. (Eby et al.) 3. Given my skills and experience, other or ganizations view me as a value-added resource. (Eby et al.) 4. When it comes to finding work outside my current company, I consider myself highly competitive. (new item, Day, 2004) 5. Regardless of the current economic situa tion, I expect that I could easily find another job. (new item, Day, 2004) Demographics Age : (1) under 20, (2) 21-30, (3) 31-40, (4) 41-50, (5) 51-60, (6) 61-70, (7) over 70. Gender : (1) male, (2) female Race : (1) Caucasian/White, (2) African Amer ican/Black, (3) Hispanic, (4) Asian, (5) Native American or Alaskan Native, (6) Other. These were re-coded into (0) nonminority and (1) minority. Marital Status : What is your marital status? (1 ) Single (2) Married (3) Divorced (4) Widowed (5) Cohabitating Children: Do you have any school aged children living with you? Job type : What is your job title? Organizational tenure : How long have you worked in your current organization? Job tenure : How long have you worked in your curre nt job? I.e. how long have you had your current or a similar job title? Occupational Tenure : How long have you worked in your field, area or discipline? Education: Please check the highest degree that you have earned: (1) High School/GED, (2) Some College or Associate, (3) Bachelors degree (4) Some Graduate work, (5) Masters degree, (7) Doctoral 1. Please provide the name of the univers ity or school from which your highest degree was granted. 2. What was your major, field or area from which your highest degree was earned? I.e., Psychology, Civil Engineering etc.
105 Appendix H Co-Worker Survey Scale Items Co-Worker Survey Scale Items ( Presented in this order ) Please answer the following questions base d on how marketable you think the employee is. Co-worker-reported Internal Marketability. Instructions: Answer the following questions based on how marketab le you think the employee is. Response options: (1) = strongly disagree to (5) = strongly agree. 1. I think our company views this employee as an asset to the organization. (Eby et al.) 2. Given his/her skills and experience, the company that I work for views this employee as a value-added resource. (Eby et al.) 3. I think that there are many opportunities available for this employee at this company. (Eby et al.) 4. He/she would be highly competitive if he/she chose to apply for other job opportunities at our current orga nization. (new item, Day, 2004) 5. I am confident that this employee could obtain a different, bu t equally rewarding position within this company. (new item, Day, 2004) Coworker-reported External Marketability 1. I think that this employee could easily obtain a comparable job with another employer. (Eby et al.) 2. There are many jobs available outside our current organization for this employee given his/he r skills and experience. (Eby et al.) 3. Given his/her skills and experience, othe r organizations view this employee as a value-added resource. (Eby et al.) 4. When it comes to finding work outside our current company, I think that he/she is considered highly competitive. (new item, Day, 2004) 5. Regardless of the current economic situa tion, I expect that this employee could easily find another job. (new item, Day, 2004) I am this individualÂ’s ________________ (1) Co-worker (2) Supervisor. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate your company on each of the following attributes? Response options: (1 ) = poor to (10) = excellent. 1. Quality of management 2. Quality of products or services 3. Long-term investment values 4. Innovativeness 5. Financial soundness 6. Ability to attract, develop and keep talented people 7. Community and environmental responsibility 8. Use of corporate assets
106 Appendix I Internal and External Marketability Factor Loadings for Participant Sample Internal and External Marketability Factor Loadings for Participant Sample Principal Axis Factoring # Marketability Item External Marketability Internal Marketability IM 1 My company views me as an asset to the organization. 0.200 0.776 IM 2 Given my skills and experience, the company that I work for views me as a value-added resource. 0.244 0.815 IM 3 There are many opportunities available for me at this company. 0.186 0.588 IM 4 I would be highly competitive if I chose to apply for other job opportunities at my current organization. 0.394 0.567 IM 5 I am confident that I could obtain a different, but equally rewarding position within this company. 0.357 0.536 EM 1 I could easily obtain a comparable job with another employer. 0.750 0.231 EM 2 There are many jobs available outside my current organization for me given my skills and experience. 0.732 0.200 EM 3 Given my skills and experience, other organizations view me as a value-added resource. 0.756 0.347 EM 4 When it comes to finding work outside my current company, I consider myself highly competitive. 0.809 0.337 EM 5 Regardless of the current economic situation, I expect that I could easily find another job. 0.756 0.336 Eigenvalue 4.15 1.98 Percentage of total variance 36.9 15.3
107 Appendix J Co-worker Reported Internal and Extern al Marketability Factor Loadings Co-worker Reported Internal and External Marketability Factor Loadings Principal Axis Factoring # Marketability Item CR-External Marketability CR-Internal Marketability IM 1 My company views me as an asset to the organization. 0.246 0.713 IM 2 Given my skills and experience, the company that I work for views me as a value-added resource. 0.269 0.772 IM 3 There are many opportunities available for me at this company. 0.147 0.642 IM 4 I would be highly competitive if I chose to apply for other job opportunities at my current organization. 0.480 0.666 IM 5 I am confident that I could obtain a different, but equally rewarding position within this company. 0.372 0.610 EM 1 I could easily obtain a comparable job with another employer. 0.692 0.280 EM 2 There are many jobs available outside my current organization for me given my skills and experience. 0.625 0.145 EM 3 Given my skills and experience, other organizations view me as a value-added resource. 0.572 0.234 EM 4 When it comes to finding work outside my current company, I consider myself highly competitive. 0.866 0.334 EM 5 Regardless of the current economic situation, I expect that I could easily find another job. 0.641 0.367 Eigenvalue 3.97 1.85 Percentage of total variance 34.7 13.5
About the Author Rachel Day was born in Queens, New Yo rk in 1976. She was raised in Long Island and received her Bachelors Degree from State University of New York at Stony Brook in Psychology in 1998. She then moved to Tampa, Florida to pursue a masters degree and doctorate in Industrial and Organi zational Psychology from the University of South Florida. Her experiences at USF have been very memorable. She is of Haitian decent and is very fond of Caribbean culture, food, and music. She loves spending time with her family and friends and apprecia tes their love and support immensely. She currently works as a re search scientist in th e Washington, DC area.