4.4 Article

Career Management in High-Performing Organizations: ASet-Theoretic Approach

Journal

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Volume 56, Issue 3, Pages 501-518

Publisher

WILEY PERIODICALS, INC
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21786

Keywords

organizational career management; new career; qualitative comparative analysis; firm high performance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study is to investigate the elements of organizational career management (OCM) that can lead to strong organizational performance. The growing unpredictability of careers requires a different organizational approach of careers. Yet, new career models all focus on the individual as the central actor, leaving the role of the organization rather underdeveloped. Based on a combined perspective integrating insights from the literature on careers, high performance work systems, and idiosyncratic deals (I-deals), we address four dimensions of OCM: supportive and developmental practices, development I-deals, individual responsibility, and consensus. We study their relationships with company performance, thereby including the firm's human capital composition. Surveys were administered to the HR directors of 293 organizations. We apply a relatively new method, fsQCA (fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis), and complement this with more conventional structural equation modeling (SEM). The SEM analyses suggest that only supportive and developmental practices are positively associated with high performance. However, based on the fsQCA, three configurations are identified in which OCM is associated with high performance. The most prevalent configuration combined supportive and developmental practices with I-deals and individual responsibility for career management. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings, and address the utility of adopting a configurational approach in career research. (c) 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available