Career successThe effects of human capital,

person-environment fit and organizationalsupport

Hassan I. BalloutFaculty of Economic Sciences and Business Administration,

The Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review relevant literatures on career success and develop atheoretical framework and testable propositions concerning how human capital, person-environment fitand organizational support relate to career success. Whilst acknowledging the substantial literature thathas accumulated regarding the various antecedents and operationalizations involved in employees’ careersuccess, there is little research as how person-environment fit and career success are related.

Design/methodology/approach – Literature outlining approaches to career success is summarizedand research at the intersection of person-environment fit and organizational support/career successare reviewed. This is followed by a set of propositions based upon the antecedents of career success.

Findings – It is suggested that person-environment fit and organizational support are importantantecedents of career success. Knowledge of career changes and these antecedents help individualsand organizations manage career success.

Research limitations/implications – Future research should examine empirically the linkagessuggested by the paper along with other relationships asserted or implied by person-environment fitand career success literature as mentioned in the paper.

Practical implications – Both employers and employees may benefit from integrating differenttypes of fit into the psychological contract because each fit will impact aspects of career success.Therefore, organizations need to select and develop employees that can easily adjust and fit intocareers that are compatible with their work environments.

Originality/value – This paper contributes to the literature by being one of the first to examine theeffects of different types of person-environment fit on career success.

Keywords Career development, Personnel psychology, Work identity, Employee development,Human capital

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionCareer success and person-environment fit have received significant attention in studiesof the workplace. This is due to the general recognition that these concepts haveimportant implications for individual behaviors and work outcomes and both affect theimplementation process of the psychological employment contract. The psychologicalcontract is generally defined in terms of a set of “individual beliefs, shaped by theorganization, regarding terms of an exchange agreement between individuals and theirorganizations” (Rousseau, 1995, p. 9). One specific aspect of this contract between

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

The author thanks an anonymous reviewer for insightful comments.

Career success

741

Received September 2006Revised August 2007

Accepted August 2007

Journal of Managerial PsychologyVol. 22 No. 8, 2007

pp. 741-765q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0268-3946DOI 10.1108/02683940710837705

employers and employees has to do with the degree of person-environment fit (Rousseauand Parks, 1992). Person-environment (PE) fit is defined as the compatibility that occurswhen individual and work environment characteristics are well matched (Kristof-Brownet al., 2005). Research on person-organization fit indicates that organizational values are agood predictor of job choices and that individuals preferred jobs or careers inorganizations which displayed values similar to their own (Schneider, 1987; Tinsley,2000). In particular, researchers have suggested that different types of fit that fall underthe notion of PE fit play significant roles in job or career choice decisions and that eachform of fit is considerably influential in areas such as job satisfaction, performance,commitment and career-related outcomes (Ostroff et al., 2005; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005;Cable and DeRue, 2002; Bretz and Judge, 1994). As individuals today are expected to workfor more organizations and on a broader range of projects (Tempest et al. 2004), socializedcareer paths and policies that support career performance and job choice behavior areexpected to become increasingly important to their advancement.

Given the importance of career succes for individuals’ perceptions of satisfactionwith their work roles and the changing nature of careers and the psychological contract(Baruch, 2004; Sullivan, 1999; Hall and Moss, 1998), the study of career success needs totake into consideration the role of PE fit in helping individuals identify their careeroptions and career decisions to fully understand the dynamics of the careeradvancement process. PE fit helps determine how well career actors fit within aparticualr work groups or a sub-culture because the “fit” includes feeling comfortablewith the organization (O’Reilly, 1989). We believe that PE fit framework tounderstanding careers is a worthwhile pursuit to explore the ways in which thepractice of career progression may be shaped by personal and organizationalcharacteristics or values that career actors appreciate and share to achieve careersuccess. Indeed, PE fit provides a significant level of interaction of individual andsituational variables for explaining individual employability and career success. SincePE fit serves many purposes including increasing employee satisfaction andcommitment, it has a direct effect on individual career satisfaction and advancement.

In trying to improve selection processes, organizations look to attractingindividuals that exhibit values similar to their own. Individuals, in turn, areattracted to and seek career opportunities with organizations that believe they fit inand realize their career ambitions. Thus, the goal of this paper was to explore issuesrelating to the influence of PE fit and organizational support on career success. We firstprovide a review of research on approaches to career success. We then review threeforms of PE fit and relate them to career success. Finally, we address the effects oforganizational support on individual career success. Our research contributes to thecareer success literature by providing an additional step toward increasing therelevance of PE fit framework to models of career choice and behavior.

Approaches to career successA number of competing approaches have been identified to explain career successpredictors. The three well-known approaches are the individual, the structural, and thebehavioral perspectives (Rosenbaum, 1989; Aryee et al., 1994).

The first approach draws heavily on individual variables found in the popularliterature of human capital and motivational theories. This approach focuses on the

JMP22,8

742

individual as the one who develops his/her own human capital and thereforemaximizes his/her education and skill investments for achieving success in careers.

The second approach relies on the management theory of the firm and vacancy modelsand postulates that organizational factors such as organizational size and internalpromotional practices are prerequisites for successful individual careers in organizations.

The third approach assumes that career achievement is a function of certain careerstrategies including political influence behavior.

The individual approachThe human capital theory provides a theoretical basis for understanding the individualapproach to career success. Human capital theory (Becker, 1975) suggests thatindividuals who invest the most in human capital attributes such as education,training, and experience are expected to show higher level of work performance andsubsequently obtain higher organizational rewards. According to this theory, anindividual’s career progression and success is contingent upon the quantity andquality of human assets one brings to the labor market (Becker, 1964) and that theskills and experiences that individuals bring to their work are related to theircompensation (Agarwal, 1981). To the extent that human capital factors influence theperformance of employees, greater personal attributes would enable them to betterperform their job, and their pay should increase accordingly to compensate them forthe additional amount of human capital required by their job. Recent empiricalevidence supports the positive linkage between human capital variables and careersuccess (Ng et al., 2005; Tharenou, 2001).

The structural approachThe structural approach to career success contends that certain structural characteristicshelp and others hinder individuals in their career advancement. Under this approach,certain organizational factors such as organizational size and internal promotionalpractices influence career aspirants’ success. The management theory of the firmsupports the structural approach. That is, the central thesis of managerialism is thatcompensation (objective measure of career success) is primarily a function oforganizational size (Tosi et al., 2000). Managerialists assert that the relationshipbetween career success and organizational size is expected since large organizations havemore hierarchical systems and engage more in complex and diversified activities. Thissuggests that large organizations are more likely to facilitate career mobility and successso that individuals’ pay increases as they move up the corporate hierarchy. As Gattikerand Larwood (1988) note, the frequency of promotion is a valuable measure of careermobility and success, since it is important for individuals’ upward climb on a corporateladder. Oliver (1997) asserts that large organizations still reward their “fast-trackers” withupward career paths and Hall and Moss (1998) consider that such promised career pathsare internal parts of the structure of large organizations. Recent empirical evidencesupports the structural approach to career paths (McDonald et al., 2005).

The behavioral approachThe behavioral approach assumes that individuals have certain control over theircareer choice and advancement and can therefore assess their career prospects andenact appropriate career plans and tactics that contribute to career success (Gould and

Career success

743

Penley, 1984; Greenhaus et al. 2000). The underlying assumption of this approach isthat career aspirants should take a proactive role in managing their own careers andpursue career strategies that are congruent within the context of organizationalstrategies (Gunz and Jalland, 1996; Gunz et al., 1998), rather than relying passively onorganizational career systems. Gould and Penley (1984) suggest that employees useboth interpersonal and intrapersonal career strategies since such behavioral strategies(self-nomination and networking) can help them receive favorable performanceevaluations. They found a link between the use of such strategies and managers’ salaryprogression. Nabi (2003) found self-nomination and networking mediated therelationship between career prospects and intrinsic career success.

Contemporary approaches to career successRecent models of career success have included a number of personality variables(Seibert et al., 2001; Crant, 2000; Seibert et al., 1999). Seibert et al. (1999, p. 16) suggestthat “career success is a cumulative outcome, the product of behaviors aggregated overa relatively long period of time.” Building on Crant’s (1995) proactive personalityframework and on the interactional psychology perspective (Weiss and Adler, 1984;Terborg, 1981), they argue that proactive individuals receive greater career outcomesand are more effective in shaping their own work environments than less proactiveindividuals. They found support for the hypothesized positive relationship betweenproactive personality and career success.

Although previous approaches to career success were driven by the strong beliefthat career success was rationally and predictably determined by a set of human,structural, and behavioral variables, recent approaches to careers have been driven bythe new realities of organizational restructuring and the alterations in thepsychological employment contract (Arthur et al., 1995; Sullivan, 1999). As a result,it is useful to examine contemporary perspectives of careers since the nature ofemployment relationship has fundamentally changed in the past years in ways thatmake the employer-employee contractual relationship temporary rather than fixed andindividual career progression lateral rather than linear.

In the recently published studies on the state of today’s career realities, threeparticularly important conceptualizations of career success emerged: the boundarylesscareer, the intelligent career and the post-corporate career.

The concept of “boundaryless” career initiated by DeFillipi and Arthur (1994) andArthur (1994) is based on a transactional contract, which is short-termism and involves anew form of employability in which the individual, rather than the organization, takes anactive rather than passive role in managing his or her career. Individuals are expected towork for more firms and on a broader range of projects. In this respect, the theory ofboundaryless career takes a behavioralistic/competency-based approach in whichmultiskilling is essential. Portable skills, the motivation to tolerate change and ambiguity,foci for new learning, personal identification with portfolio careers and the development ofmultiple networks of relationships are all integral aspects of the boundaryless career.

An additional concept termed “protean career” was followed, with the focus on theindividual as the one in control (Hall, 1996). This new form of career is mostlydescribed as an individual-focused approach, in which individuals are responsible fortheir careers and that their unique human resource qualities (including human capitaland capabilities) drive their success in multi-employer settings. Under this perspective,

JMP22,8

744

the contract is a contract with one’s self and one’s work, rather with the organization,and is based on continuous learning and the development of self-knowledge andadapablity. Individuals in protean careers will have several careers (Hall and Mirvis,1995) and thus have to adapt to new realities of employment changes across multiplefirms and boundaries. In short, protean careers are fluid, flexible, internally-determinedand involve continuous learning and growth in the pursuit of career goals (Hall andMirvis, 1995; Sullivan, 1999; MacDermid et al., 2001).

The concept of the intelligent career introduced also by DeFillipi and Arthur (1994)presented a different behavioral view in which self-knowledge or self-awareness isfundamental. It involves the development of three “ways of knowing”: knowing-why,knowing-how, and knowing-whom. Knowing-why has to do with an individual’s workmotivation (in a particular occupation or industry), the construction of personal valuesand interests, and the identification with the employing firm’s culture. Knowing-how hasto do with an individual’s career-relevant skills, abilities and competencies available tosupport current role behaviors. Knowing-whom refers to an individual’s set ofinterpersonal relationships within and outside current work behavior available to supportcareer opportunities and employability. As Baruch (2004, p.88) indicated “why, how, andwhom are primarily individual assets of motivation, skills and relationships.” In brief, theintelligent career places a great deal of emphasis on individual competencies and rolebehaviors, and on the connections between these competencies (application of thedifferent forms of knowing) and organizational employment processes and practices.

The concept of post-corporate career offered by Peiperl and Baruch (1997) presentssomehow a different behavioral view in which vision or self-identity is fundamental.The concept suggests that career paths are horizontally and not vertically evolvingover time as individual and organizational career realities are changing in the“post-corporate world”. According to Peiperl and Baruch (1997), current and futurecareers focus on “horizontal links that transcend geographical and organizationalboundaries” and as such links continue to grow, individuals who have scarce skills andcompetencies will have more opportunities in establishing their professional orentrepreneurial career. As careers become increasingly “intelligents” (Arthur et al.,1995; Parker, 2002), the traditional vertical career paths have been replaced bypost-organizational careers in which individuals’ careers are rapidly advancingthrough professional or industry-based identity than by upward organizational-basedidentity. The underlying assumption of this approach is that career aspirants shouldtake a professional or entrepreneurship role in managing their own careers and pursuecareer strategies that fall in line with their personal competencies and occupationalexcellence. Studies by Morris and Empson (1998), Alvesson (2001), and others, haveanalyzed managerial and organizational pratcices regarding career prospects from theperspective of “cultural matching” and knowledge management base. For example,Alvesson (2000, 2001) suggested that, through the active participation of individuals inknowledge-intensive firms, the identity of career actor is reconstructed and his/herloyalty is reinforced by top management to fit into the norms and values prescribed bythe corporate culture of the organization (person-culture fit). The reconstruction ofcorporate identity constitutes the individual as a product of the social techniques ofpower relations. The prospects of career success involves a commitment to hard workand of being “professional” according to local standards. Individuals are encouraged todefine themselves as the kind of people who are influential in creating and maintaining

Career success

745

a particular career identity that can fit to a community of people. Consequently, socialidentity and “cultural matching” at work in terms of person-job fit andperson-organization fit become crucial to employee commitment and careeradvancement in knowledge-intensive firms (Alvesson, 2001).

In the career literature, career success has been partitioned into extrinsic andintrinsic dimensions (Gattiker and Larwood, 1988; Judge et al., 1995; Melamed, 1996).Extrinsic success represents the objective component of career success, and refers toobservable career accomplishments or outcomes, such as pay, promotions, ascendancy,and occupational status (Jaskolla et al., 1985). Intrinsic success represents thesubjective component of career success, and refers to individuals’ feelings andreactions to their own careers, and is usually assessed in terms of psychologicalsuccess such as career satisfaction, career commitment, and job satisfaction (Gattikerand Larwood, 1988; Judge et al., 1995). We contend that the subjective career successreflects the natural flow of the individual’s perceptions of satisfaction and success inwork activities or career roles. The emphasis is on the person rather than theorganization. Specifics of the self (achievement of personal goals and needs) dictate theways in which individual promised paths are established. As Hall (1996) noted,subjective career success becomes more relevant since an individual has a potentiallygreater responsibility to take in career development. From the subjective side,individuals view their career success as a function of their own internal standards andperceptions of satisfaction and success in social networks of relationships.

Career success may be conceptualized in terms of the desired work and pschologicaloutcomes that individuals hold about their careers over the span of their lifetime.Including both objective and subjective components of career success is importantsince career success is often operationalized in terms of both extrinsic (tangible) andintrinsic (affective and less tangible) measures (Greenhaus et al. 1990; Turban andDougherty, 1994; Allen et al., 2004; Ng et al., 2005). In this study, the focus is on bothobjective and subjective career success. Although we acknowledge that these representdifferent outcomes of one’s career experience, the phrase “career success” is used hereto include both indicators of the construct.

While previous career literature has been useful in identifying several categories ofinfluences on career success, little research on the effect of person-environment fit oncareer success has been conducted. First, we introduce the effect of human capital oncareer success. Then the three forms of PE fit (person-job fit, person-organization fit,and person-culture fit) proposed to be related to employees’ perceptions of success incareers are discussed.

Human capital and career successFirst, early career research typically linked demographic and personal factors to careersuccess. For example, demographic factors such as age and marital status and personalfactors such as education and experience were found to be strong determinants ofcareer success (Dalton, 1951; Pfeffer, 1977; Hall and Hall, 1979; Gould and Penley,1984). More recently, empirical evidence supports the idea that personal andsocio-demographic characteristics are strong predictors of career success (Ng et al.,2005; Kirchmeyer, 1998). Research evidence indicates that human capital variableshave a significant impact on career success because they explain a large proportion ofthe variation in salary (Chenevert and Tremblay, 2002; Cannings, 1988; Jaskolla et al.,

JMP22,8

746

1985) as well as in the number of promotions (Stewart and Gudykunst, 1982).Researchers have found personal investments in education and experience to be thestrongest and most consistent predictors of career progression (Tharenou et al., 1994;Dreher and Ash, 1990). Kirchmeyer (1998) found work experience and tenure to bestrongly related to objective and subjective career success. As careers become moreuncertain, these personal and portable characteristics become more critical, perhapsmore than ever, for career actors that are facing different models of career success.Thus, based on past research, we propose:

P1. Human capital factors, including education level, work investment, workexperience, and the number of hours worked are each positively related tocareer success.

Person-environment fit and career successThe degree of similarity or fit between a person and the work environment has recentlyattracted much attention from both scholars and practitioners. The person-environment(PE) concept has been described as, “so pervasive as to be one of, if not the, dominantconceptual forces in the field” (Schneider, 2001, p. 142). The concept is also viewed as “acomprehensive notion that necessarily includes one’s compatibility with multiple systemsin the work environment” (Kristof-Brown et al., 2002, p. 985).

The underlying assumption of the PE fit perspective is that the degree of fit ormatch between people and their environment produce important outcomes or benefitsfor employees (Van Vianen et al., 2007; Lauver and Kristof-Brown, 2001). Theories ofPE fit draw on organizational psychology in that they consider how personal andsituational characteristics combine to influence individuals’ performances and otherbehaviors in a given environment. The PE fit theory has been used extensively toexplain individual differences and organizational psychology traditions (Schneider,2001). For example, theories that have supported PE fit perspective include personality(Endler and Magnusson, 1976; Erdogan and Bauer, 2005), vocational choice orpsychology (Dawis and Lofquist, 1984; Holland, 1997), and personnelattraction-selection-attrition framework (Schneider et al., 1995; Billsberry, 2007).

In light of the PE fit studies, multiple perspectives and constructs of fit haveemerged to include person-job (PJ) fit, person-vocation (PV) fit, person-person (PP) fit,person-group (PG) fit, person-organization (PO) fit and person-culture (PC) fit (O’Reillyet al., 1991; Adkins et al., 1994; Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Werbel andGilliland, 1999; Parkes et al., 2001; Carless, 2005; Morley, 2007). Most PE fit studieshave compared individual attributes (needs and values) and situational/organizationalcharacteristics (job demands and occupational type) for predicting and explaining thebeneficial outcomes associated with increased fit.

Given the different perspectives on fit and the relationship of PE fit constructs topeople’s career-related behaviors (career involvement and career success) and toorganizational processes (organizational attraction and selection), our interest liespredominately with specific notions of fit, namely PJ fit, PO fit, and PC fit. We specificallyfocus on these three types of fit since they impact job or career-focused outcomes and areuseful to enquire into PE fit and career success linkage.

Previous research includes the use of PJ, PO, and PC fit perceptions to provide amatch or a congruence explanation of individual differences in job choice decisions andproactive career behaviors (Cable and Judge, 1994; Cable and DeRue, 2002; Erdogan and

Career success

747

Bauer, 2005). Werbel and Gilliland (1999) suggested to including different forms of fit inpersonnel selection. Other researchers have shown how these fit influence employees’work attitudes and enhance career benefits of proactive individuals (Kristof-Brown et al.,2002; Erdogan and Bauer, 2005). As these types of fit affect both employees’ behaviorsand their work environment, they are acknowledged to have their progressiveapplication in various allied areas of social and behavioral sciences (Morley, 2007).

Person-job fit and career successPerson-job fit is defined as the fit between the abilities of a person and the demands ofthe job or the needs/desires of a person and the attributes of the job (Edwards, 1991).Kristof (1996) considered PJ fit as one of the well-studied forms of PE fit that it concernsthe compatibility between individuals and the specific jobs or tasks they are required toperform in a given contractual relationship. She added that the assessment thatindividuals make concerning the match between their abilities and those of jobrequirements are likely to determine the fit. Conceptually, the relative importance of PJ fitis outlined in terms of the distinction between demands-abilities fit and needs-supplies fit(Edwards, 1991). The first form of fit exists when individuals’ knowledge, skills, abilities(KSA), and other attributes are compatible with what the job requires. The second formof PJ fit occurs when individuals’ needs and desires are commensurate with what the jobsupplies (job attributes) in order to be performed (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Researchaddressing employee selection or career choice practices has traditionally focused onachieving PJ fit where job applicants or career actors assess the degree of match betweentheir KSA and the job or career requirements using certain selection and hiringtechniques such as job analysis, personality assessment, and the use of realistic jobpreviews (Werbel and Gilliland, 1999; Bowen et al., 1991; Wanous, 1992). Researchersdemonstrated that high PJ fit has a number of positive outcomes. PE fit has beenpositively related to job-and-career-focused outcomes (job satisfaction, careersatisfaction, occupational commitment), career involvement, organizationalcommitment, and career success, and negatively related to employee turnover (Cableand DeRue, 2002; Bretz and Judge, 1994; Chatman, 1991; Harris and Mossholder, 1996;Lauver and Kristof-Brown, 2001; O’Reilly et al., 1991).

Applied specifically to individual career development, PJ fit (needs-supplies fit) maybe achieved when career actors’ talents and contributions (KSA, job involvement,career commitment) meet environmental demands (career path, psychological success,continuous learning). PJ fit researchers found that employees choose jobs or careersthat utilize their KSA (Carless, 2005) and that PJ fit was strongly related to their careersatisfaction and occupational commitment (Cable and DeRue, 2002).

From an individual perspective, the abilities and competencies that career actors bringto meet job-and-career-related requirements are likely to increase their choice oradjustment to jobs or careers that are congruent with their KSA and/or career-relevantpersonality types. Studies have shown that employees’ intellectual capital and scarceskills have become highly marketable in high technology and financial services andtelevision industries (Flood et al., 2001; Tempest et al., 2004), and that proactive employeesshape their environments and engage in career behaviors that have positive effect on theircareer progression and satisfaction (Crant, 2000; Seibert et al., 2001). A stronger sense ofPJ fit is likely to occur when career actors’ KSA and competencies are consistent with therequirements of their perceived career contracts (job demands).

JMP22,8

748

As discussed earlier, the PJ fit between employee and employer is based on the idea ofthe psychological contract. One of the key issues of a psychological contract is the extent towhich both parties share the same benefits regarding their obligations to each other(Rousseau, 1995) and define how well such obligations are met within the specific types ofcontractual arrangements. Two basic types of contracts have been identified –transactional and relational (MacNeil, 1985; Robinson et al., 1994) – and each type containselements of different types of careers espoused by specific types of employees. Atransactional contract typically involves a short-term monetary exchange of specificcontributions and benefits or inducements, with the employer contracting for specific jobopportunities with very specific skills and/or positions and then compensating thecontracting employee for targeted performance (Hui et al., 2004; Ackah and Heaton, 2004).Employers with psychological contracts are likely to select and hire employees based onjob-related skills and career-related knowledge needed for competent performance in workroles. As for employees, they expect transactional contracts to provide immediate directrewards (pay) and other motivational aspects (training, transferable skills, careerexperiences) that enhance their career employability. Therefore, PJ fit is most directlyrelevant in selecting and/or promoting employees for specific skills or duties that are to besatisfactorily performed under the transactional contract. For example, employeesacquiring highly portable and marketable skills may take advantage of an opportunity forinter-organizational mobility by leveraging such skills to renegotiate their contract withtheir current employer (Arthur et al., 2005). They may also seek career opportunities in avariety of organizations and negotiate work arrangements across their life course andenjoy occupational advancement and mobility across different jobs, industries, andorganizations. As such, employees may see themselves as fitting particular types ofcareers such as “boundaryless” or “entrepreneurial” careers that are increasingly prevalentin today’s career world. Empirical evidence shows that employees who invest in“boundaryless” career competencies report higher levels of career success (Eby et al., 2003).Tharenou (1997, p. 84) found that individual traits and managerial skills to be important incareer advancement and that “individual qualities and work environment factors combineto facilitate individuals entering and advancing in management in hierarchicalorganizations”. Individuals who advanced in their career were ambitious, motivated,intelligent, and “suited to the task demands of managerial jobs” (Tharenou, 1997, p. 83).Similarly, Anackwe et al. (2000) found that the acquisition and utilization ofknowledge-related skills to be positively related to career management strategies suchas personal learning, goal setting, career strategies, and career decision making. Zabuskyand Barley (1996) noted, however, that employee careers are seen as “careers ofachievements” in terms of skills and behaviors, rather than seen in terms of an individual’shierarchical advancement. Individual careers are termed “intelligent careers”, with thefocus on the individual as the one in control (Arthur et al., 1995). One fundamentalcharacteristics of an “intelligent career” is “know how” manifested in personal qualitiessuch as career competencies, skills, knowledge, and capabilities. Contrary to Schneider’sattraction-selection-attrition framework of PO fit of organizational choices, Billsberry(2007) found that graduates are attracted to choose particular types of jobs rather thanorganizational ones.

Together, these studies suggest that career success decisions are influenced by the“fit” between individual skills and competencies and the job or career requirements.

Career success

749

This leads to the proposition that employees’ perceptions of PJ fit will have positiveimpact on their career success in transactional psychological contracts:

P2. PJ fit is likely to be positively related to career success in employeetransactional psychological contracts.

Person-organization fit and career successDefined as “the compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when at leastone entity provides what the other needs or they share similar fundamentalcharacteristics, or both” (Kristof, 1996, pp. 4-5), PO fit is associated with a person’sattitudes about the organization based on congruent goals and values (Chatman, 1989;Van Vianen et al., 2007). Manifestations of this congruence include organizationalattraction and employee selection (Schneider, 2001; Carless, 2005; Hoffman and Woehr,2006), employee commitment, satisfaction, and intent to quit (Verquer et al., 2003,Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), and work behaviors and career decisions (Bretz and Judge,1994; Young and Hurlic, 2007).

Although PJ fit and PO fit may be independent and each type is associated withdifferent aspects of the environment and with different outcome variables, PO fit hasmany dimensions (Piasentin and Chapman, 2006), and acknowledged to be animportant factor in explaining the extent of career progression (Bretz et al., 1993). Inaddition to labeling demand-abilities and needs-supplies fit within PO fit construct, POfit also includes supplementary fit and complementary fit, both of which are importantin PO fit studies. Supplementary fit occurs when individuals’ characteristics are similarto organizational characteristics, and complementary fit occurs when individuals’characteristics “fill a void or adds something missing in the organization” (Piasentinand Chapman, 2006). Supplementary fit has to do with matching similar levels ofcharacteristics between employees (personality traits, values, goals) and organizations(culture, values, norms), whereas complementary fit is concerned with bridging the gapbetween the patterns of these assessed characteristics. However, needs-supplies andabilities-demands fit have attracted more PO fit researchers as they apply tocongruence and vocational choice theories (Nikolaou, 2003).

From a needs-supplies standpoint, the degree of perceived or actual fit of careeractors to the values of the recruiting or employing organization is defined in terms oftheir internal career desires, goals, and values. Thus, the assessment that career actorsmake concerning the similarity between their personal characteristics and those of theorganization are likely to determine their decision to negotiate career “deals” in termsof career stages and expectations including their preferences and perceptions oforganizational reward policies and practices. Cable and Judge (1994) investigated thePO fit congruence of engineering and hotel administration students in the context ofpay preferences and job search decisions. They discovered that the attractiveness ofthe pay policies of organizations was increased by higher levels of match betweenindividual personality characteristics and those of the pay and compensation system.Similarly, Pappas and Flaherty (2006) examined whether the congruence ofsalespeople’s characteristics such as career development and risk attitudes matchedtheir reactions to compensation practices (differences in rewards) when predictingmotivation. They found that characteristics of the individual salespeople influencedthe relationship between compensation and components of motivation (valence forreward, expectancy perceptions, and instrumentality perceptions). Schneider (2001)

JMP22,8

750

noted that individuals are attracted to and seek careers with organizations that theybelieve they will fit in and organizations in turn may select employees who havesimilar characteristics to their own. In sum, these studies and a recent meta-analysisconducted by Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) support the PO framework suggesting thatindividuals assess the fit based on the match between their characteristics and thesituational characteristics of the environment in which they work.

Although the personal characteristics of career actors determine the PO fit from theeffect of personality and value congruence, career researchers noted the need to developcareer strategies and behaviors individuals and organizations use to promote careersuccess. For example, mentoring as a networking developmental strategy was found to bepositively related to career success (Allen et al., 2004; Van Emmerik, 2004). Individuals thatpossess similar characteristics with their mentors and/or supervisors are likely to invest indevelopmental relationships and get the social support needed to help them satisfy theircareer preferences and advance to higher levels. Mentorship and interpersonal supportarise from similarity to the managerial hierarchy in an individual’s organization. Thesimilarity-attraction perspective (person-person fit or supplementary fit) argues thatindividuals are attracted to and prefer those similar to themselves (Byrne, 1971). Kanter(1977) believed that managers choose individuals socially similar to themselves toprogress and advance. Empirical evidence supports the similarity-attraction theoryregarding mentoring homogeneity and its effect on career success. Godshalk and Sosik(2003) found that mentor and protege who have and possess similar levels of learning goalorientation reported the highest levels of psychological support and higher levels of careerdevelopment. The similarity-attraction theory is mostly depicted in terms of a contractualrelationship, where the psychological contract between employee and employer maygradually evolve to reflect the socio-emotional and economic benefits of the matchingprocess. Granrose and Baccili (2006, p. 164) noted that “one of the key issues of the contentof a psychological contract is the extent to which an employer or a manger is willing tohelp the employee develop his or her career as it extends over time.” In a relationalpsychological contract managers would provide inducements including opportunities fortraining and development, support and career rewards in exchange for the employeeproviding loyalty and commitment (Rousseau, 2004). A relational contract typicallyinvolves a long-term arrangements and a “mutually satisfying relationship between theparties, with open-ended arrangements that include both socio-emotional and economicterms” (O’Neill and Adya, 2007, p. 414). This contract promotes congruence between theperson and the organization (PO fit) since it establishes an ongoing relationship betweenemployer and employee (Ackah and Heaton, 2004). An individual would have careersuccess based on the employer providing mentoring relationships and a longer-term careerpath and development that provide both economic and socio-emotional rewards.Employees with relational contracts are more concerned about stable careers and lessconcerned about particular jobs in the organization. For these employees, a high level ofPO fit is likely to increase their commitment and motivation toward task performance andtheir engagement in good and lasting relationships (mentoring relationships,organizational citizenship behaviors) with their employers, which in turn will result inpositive individual career and organizational outcomes. Although PO fit wasdemonstrated to lead to job satisfaction (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), it may also lead tocareer satisfaction and success. Individuals with high levels of PO fit invest in careerdevelopmental and networking relationships with other individuals (peers, mentors,

Career success

751

supervisors) in their work environment and engage in career decisions entailing morework satisfaction, upward moves, more promotions and higher incomes. Researchersnoted the influence of PO fit on individual career decisions (Young and Hurlic, 2007;Cooper-Thomas et al., 2004). Conceiving PO fit to be related to long-term career decisionsand it would facilitate organizational career advancement in relational contracts allows usto advance the following proposition:

P3. PO fit is likely to be positively related to career success in employee relationalpsychological contracts.

Person-culture fit and career successThe degree of congruence or compatibility between the individual’s values and theorganizations’ values is typically referred to as person-culture fit (Chatman, 1991;Meglino and Ravlin, 1998: Parkes et al., 2001). The person-culture (PC) fit perspective isbased on the notion that individuals adapt and adjust better to their workenvironments when the organization’s values match their personal values (O’Reillyet al., 1991; Vanderberghe, 1999). O’Reilly et al. (1991) demonstrated that valuecongruence between a person’s values and his/her organization’s culture predictedoutcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover. Valuecongruence is defined as the match between the organization’s existing culturalcharacteristics (norms and values) and the individual’s values (Chatman, 1991; O’Reillyet al., 1991). A large body of research showed how organizational culture exertsconsiderable influence on employee performance and commitment and helps determinehow well a person “fits” within a particular organization (Deal and Kennedy, 1982;Peters and Waterman, 1982; O’Reilly, 1989).

In particular, culture has been shown to impact on organizational performance andemployee-related variables such as work satisfaction and individual career progression(Odom et al., 1990; Lok and Crawford, 1999; Claes and Ruiz-Quntanilla, 1998). Onemeasure of the degree of PC fit is the effect of the dimension of individualism/collectivism(IC) on work behavior. Specifically, PC fit with regard to this dimensions should reflectdifferences in beliefs and values about how closely employees should be assimilatedwithin their groups in order to advance specific values or career-related outcomes.Internal aspects of individual careers, such as career orientation or success, are likely to beaffected by IC dimension since they are embedded in personal perceptions and values oncareer choices. In individualistic organizations employees value their independence andindividuality from their groups, whereas employees in collectivistic organizations seethemselves as interdependent members of their groups (Parkes et al., 2001; Hofstede,1980). IC indicates the degree of interrelatedness among organizational members as wellas the way by which members construct their concept of themselves and exchangerelationships with their employers (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis et al., 1988; Markus andKitayama, 1991; Thomas and Au, 2002). IC has been reported to be one of the mostheavily researched cultural dimension of work-related values (Cox, 1994).

Employees fitting individualistic cultures are encouraged to pursue their own careergoals and expectations, with a preference for rewards based on individual achievement(Triandis, 1995; Newstrom and Davis, 2002). They tend to compete for organizationalresources and demonstrate initiative to maintain a higher level of performance andsatisfaction across the firm as a whole. Conversely, employees fitting collectivisticcultures are encouraged to pursue shared career goals and objectives (Noordin et al., 2002).

JMP22,8

752

They tend to subordinate their personal goals to group goals, with a preference forrewards based on the accomplishments of the group or the organization (Erez, 2004,McMillan-Capehart, 2005). This implies that career success in individualistic cultures isgrounded in personal interests and effectiveness based on the equity rule of rewardallocation, while in collectivistic cultures it is shaped more by social and group norms andrules based on the equality rule of reward allocation.

Consequently, IC dimension portrays the differences in work attitudes and socialbehaviors among members of one culture. Wagner and Moch (1986) found that thesetwo cultural characteristics were related to job type. Individualists tended to performtasks or jobs that are more independent and collectivists performed jobs that requiredteamwork. They also found that collective rewards of work were less appealing forindividualists than for collectivists.

Individualism has to do with autonomy, personal growth and challenge. Employeesfitting individualistic cultures see themselves as being independent from members ofgroups and are inner-directed in pursuing their own career goals regarding thedevelopment of self-regulatory competences. On the other hand, employees fittingcollectivistic cultures see themselves as group-oriented in promoting cooperative goalsand in planning their subordinates’ career progression. Thus, career success inindividualistic cultures is based on individual initiative and achievement since thefocus is on the task (Hofstede, 1980) and on personal career goals and strategies thatare relevant to career opportunities (Ashford and Cummings, 1983). Individuals aremore likely to take responsibility for managing their own success and for promotingtheir career achievement.

Further, individuals are expected to perform successfully organizational tasks,engage proactively in career management activities (Sigler and Pearson, 2000; Crant,1995), and view their career as central to their self-concept. Judge et al. (1995)hypothesized work centrality as one motivational predictor of executive career success.They found that executives whose work was central part of their lives achieved greatercareer success than those who saw their work less central. A recent meta-analysis byNg et al. (2005) has shown work centrality to be significantly related to bothcomponents of career success.

In most individualistic cultures, employees are rewarded based on their individualcontribution to goal attainment (Erez, 2004), with the managers evaluating theirperformance based on their individual contributions. In collectivistic cultures, anindividual’s career is perhaps defined much more in group terms and is carefullyplanned by the firm (Okabe, 2002). An individual sees himself or herself as an aspect ofan in-group and his or her success as dependent on the success of an in-group (Early,1993). According to person-culture fit theory, individualistic employees inindividualistic organizations, and collectivistic employees in collectivisticorganizations should demonstrate high levels of career satisfaction and success.

Thus, we propose that employees fitting individualistic cultures would facilitate amore internally-oriented career (i.e. protean career) since they strongly rely on initiativeand personal qualities (autonomy, self-awareness, self-learning) to get ahead. However,employees fitting collectivistic cultures would facilitate a more bounded career (i.e.traditional career) characterized by vertical success which is planned and managed bytheir organizations in return for their hard work, loyalty, commitment, and conformityto group harmony and norms.

Career success

753

P4. PC fit is likely to be positively related to career success, such that individualisticemployees report high levels of career success in individualistic than incollectivistic organizations and that collectivistic employees report high levels ofcareer success in collectivistic than individualistic ones.

Organizational support and career successPast research has suggested that organizational-level factors need to to be taken intoaccount when investigating the antecedents and correlates of career success. In thisstudy we analyze how perceived organizational support relate to individual careersuccess. Recent research has found organizational sponsorship variables such ascareer sponsorship, supervisor support, training and skill development opportunities,and organizational resources were related to career success (Ng et al., 2005).

Perceived organizational support and career successEisenberger et al. (1986, p. 501) introduced the concept of perceived organizationalsupport (POS) to explain the development of employee commitment to an organization.They suggested that “employees develop global beliefs concerning the extent to whichthe organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being”, and theyadded that such global beliefs or perceived organizational support would lead toincreased rewards. That is, employees become attached to their organizations becausethey perceive a beneficial exchange relationship between their contributions and therewards they receive for service. Eisenberger et al. (1986) used social exchange view(Blau, 1964) to explain the reciprocal effect of commitment between the employee andthe organization, and they showed that POS is significantly associated withorganizational commitment. Given the positive effect of POS on employee commitmentand job satisfaction (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002), it seems logical to suggest thatperceived organizational support is related to career success as well. That is, POS mayenhance the individual’s personal competence, a factor also related to career success.Perceptions of being valued and supported by an organization lead to desired employeeattitudes and behaviors including organizational commitment and trust, andsubsequently to valued rewards (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Wayne et al., 1997).

In their meta-analysis concerning the contribution of POS to performance-relatedexpectancies, Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) found POS to be positively associatedwith opportunities for greater recognition and pay and promotion. Within the workdomain, POS may emanate either from the supervisor (perceived supervisor support) orpeers or other senior managers. Supportive supervisors affect individuals’ willingness toengage in development activities (Noe, 1996) and are critical for subordinate performanceand success. In other words, subordinates’ careers may be enriched by supportiverelationships with supervisors or peers. In some organizations, for example, socialsupport provided by superviors may take the form of career guidance and information,learning opportunities and challenging work assignments that promote careeradvancement (Greenhaus et al., 1990). For example, Dreher and Ash (1990) foundmentorship to be related to both objective and subjective measures of career success.Kirchmeyer (1998) found supervisor support significantly predicted men’s and women’smanagerial perceived career success and Greenhaus et al. (1990) found supervisorsupport to be significantly related to men’s career satisfaction. Whitely et al. (1991)examined mentoring and socioeconomic origins as antecedents of early career outcomes

JMP22,8

754

for salaried managers and professional graduates working in various organizations.They found career mentoring to be related to career success. Other researchers foundthat mentorship and supportive work relationships were related to career advancementas well as perceived career success (Turban and Dougherty, 1994). Wallace (2001) foundthat mentoring for female lawyers increased their career success and satisfaction. Allenet al. (2004) reviewed empirical studies concerning the career benefits associated withmentoring and concluded that career mentoring is more strongly related to subjectiveindicators of career success than it is to objective career success indicators. Nabi (2001)suggested social support to fall into three categories: personal, peer, and network. Hefound peer support (support and guidance provided by experienced peer) to be stronglyrelated to men’s subjective career success, whereas personal support (support andenhancing information from friends or career-related issues) to be strongly related towomen’s subjective career success. Recent research relates social capital to careermobility and outcomes (Lin and Huang, 2005). Seibert et al. (2001) found that socialcapital was positively related to promotions and career satisfaction and Burt (1997)reported that managers with more social capital, measured by network constraints, werepromoted faster and received larger bonuses than those with less social capital (networkscomposed of few contacts). Hence, we propose that perceived social support at work inthe form of mentorship, netwoking and supportive work relationships would lead togreater career opportunities and enhanced career satisfaction.

P5. There will be a positive relationship between perceived organizationalsupport and career success. Employees who perceive high levels oforganizational support will report greater career success than employeeswho percive low levels of support.

Limitations and future research suggestionsThis study was limited by the set of factors that were proposed to be linked to careersuccess. Although there are many predictors that have been examined in previous modelsof career success, the study was just a literature review and explored the impact ofperson-job fit, person-organization fit, and person-culture fit on career success. There hasbeen little research effort to identify what are the different types of PE fit that are mostrelated to components of career success and whether the effect is direct or indirect.Consequently, one area of future research concerns the influence of various levels of PE fiton career success. Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) found that employees’ work attitudes weredifferentially predicted by different forms of PE fit. While this study utilized three types ofPE fit porposed to influence career decisions, these need to be empirically tested alongand/or with other forms. Future research is needed to expand the various levels of PE fit(person-group, person-department, person-supervisor, person-team) for a more completeunderstanding of the proposed relationships between levels of PE fit and components ofcareer success. For example, there may be individual differences that predict the extent towhich employees (and perhaps organizations) place value on fit with the supervisor, fitwith one’s workgroup, or fit with one’s team, and these differences might be important forexplaining variation in career success.

In this study I have attempted to address the question: how does PE fit relate tocomponents of career success? Because individuals may perceive and assess careerbenefits and outcomes success according to their perceived and/or actual fit withspecific work environment within the context of employment relationships, it is useful

Career success

755

to investigate the effects of contract types on the relationship between various PE fitand career success. For example, Sekiguchi (2007) has recently introduced acontingency perspective of PE fit in employee selection noting the role of PJ fit intransactional contracts and that of PO fit in relational contracts and O’Neil and Adya(2007) suggested that organizations should manage knowledge workers with differentpsychological contracts across different stages of employment. Therefore, PE fit andthe congruence between the psychological contracts of employee and employer andtheir joint effect on employee selection and success in careers remain to be examined infuture career management models.

ConclusionsOrganizations are facing incredible pressures in multiple areas (economy, technology,structure, society in general) to adjust to the new, evolving demands of theirconstituencies and to become more efficient and competitive within theirenvironments. These new demands will likely necessitate changes in planning andmanaging the careers of their employees. The fit of person and environment is adominant force in employee selection and in explaining individuals’ job satisfaction,performance, and career success. PE fit and career success should be related since bothinteract to affect employees’ career decisions and satisfaction and advancement in boththe workgoup (subculture) and organization context. This article has discussedpromoting career success through a PE fit and social support framework. Accordingly,three conclusions can be drawn from our analysis.

First, the examination of career success from a PE fit perspective should not beindependent of organizational career paths or types (bounded vs boundaryless or portablecareers). To some extent, employees’ perceptions of their fit to particular career types(traditional vs new organizational norms of career “deal”) and employment relationshipsmirror their expectations regarding the kind of “careers” their employers would offer.While the psychological contract between employer and employee has shifted to reflect adecreasing promise of a career for life (Herriot and Pemberton, 1995), many employeesstill expect employers to offer careers which reflect success in subjective terms, such asrecognition, influence and personal orientations (Sturges, 2004). Further, psychologicalcontract fulfillment has been shown to lead to various positive employee attitudes andbehaviors, including increased organizational support, commitment, and organizationalcitizenship behavior (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000).

Second, considering career success in the context of PE fit suggests that theapproaches to career progression are likely to occur across different dimensions ofindividual or group and organizational values. Indeed, career success is assessed interms of vocational or career choice or based on value congruence beween an employeeand his/her manager or between an individual’s value congruence with the workgroupor subculture of the organization. When an employee has a good fit with a particularjob or career his/her interest lies first in evaluating the work and tasks to beaccomplished then comparing his/her career goals and expectations to thesecomponents of PJ. In light of this, specialized skills, personal competencies, andprofessional knowledge that career aspirants supply for handling specific projects orassigned workloads and tasks across specific or similar job or occupations are likely toallow them to experience fluid career paths (e.g. protean career). When an employee hasa good fit with a particular organization he/she is likely to engage in development

JMP22,8

756

seeking behaviors and create situations that support higher levels of job performanceand achievements. An employee evaluates his/her fit based on the organization’sspecific information about its values, policies, and culture (Carless, 2005). For example,PO fit can be seen from the perspective of career aspirants in terms of theorganization’s compensations practices (Barber and Bretz, 2000) such as promotionalopportunities and equitable rewards. Based on perceptions of fit, career aspirantsdevelop exchange relationships with both the organizations and immediatesupervisors and value relational or transactional contract fulfillment that offer themsteady employment, promotion, individual learning and growth, and valued rewards.Under the relational psychological contract where the locus of responsibility is on theorganization, PO fit that entails long-term relationships associated with long-termcareer decisions might lead career aspirants to favor a traditional form of careersuccess that offer them lateral or vertical moves to different jobs or areas in theorganization.

Moreover, the dimension of IC of person-culture fit is of great relevance toexplaining how career actors align their personal career values with a corporate cultureor subculture that exhibits their fit for particular career paths. For example, employeesfitting individualistic cultures give priority to personal work values and career goalsand achievements when compared to others. As such, the individual and theboundaryless perspectives of careers will unfold more and more among careeraspirants whose personal competencies, social networks, and professional identitiespermit them to cross beyond the boundaries of one life employer or industry. However,employees fitting collectivistic cultures seek to promote in-group career goal and aremotivated by social-oriented achievement goals and not individual-oriented goals(Niles, 1998; Triandis, 1995) when compared to others, and therefore the boundedcareer (e.g. structural) is presumed to be the matched career type. Career success insuch cultures is largely determined by the organization’s career systems in whichgroup-based reward distribution systems are preferred by individuals who arepredisposed to work in cooperative work settings. Organizational commitment andtrust combined with competence and hard work predict job performance, which is thedirect antecedent to career opporunities and continued employment.

Third, PE fit perspective of career success calls for the rise of organizational supportsystems that include elements such as mentoring or sponsorship, specialized training anddevelopment programs in one area of the organization, clear career paths for success, andwork-family support programs that allow a balance between work and familyresponsibilities. In today’s contemporary work environment, most employees are likely toneed social support in managing their careers. Information and career guidance andsupport from others are needed not just on particular jobs, which may well disappear, buton the direction of the economy, labor market, profession or sector, and therefore the kindsof skills and key competencies which will be relevant in the future. As argued by Peiperland Baruch (1997), careers in the twenty-first century require a new set of supportstructures and global links. Support structures incorporate different supporting elementssuch as social identities and social networks that enable individuals to engage in differentcareer paths with different organizations including employment agencies, professionalbodies, and communities-based organizations. Consequently, employees who receivemore social support are likely to experience higher levels of perceived fit, which, in turn,enhance their opportunities for career advancement.

Career success

757

To conclude, career success has emerged as an important concern for both employeesand employers. This is due in large part to the demonstrated links between careersuccess and a number of individual and organizational variables. Past research hastended to focus on sets of variables pertaining to the theory of rational choice andbehavior. Career success was assumed to be a function of human, motivational andorganization-specific variables that assessed the success an individual wishes to attain inhis or her career. The way we view career success, however, can be envisioned byinvestigating the influences of different types of PE fit on career success. It is widelyacknowledged that individuals and organizations are nowadays experiencing differentmodels of careers as compared to previous decades, and both have to share responsibilityin managing and controlling the process and the challenging nature of career success.Because careers are changing, and there is widespread agreement among researchersand practitioners that career success is no longer solely determined by a set ofwell-defined variables, the effects of different types of PE fit may provide insight intohow employees and employers can achieve a substantial fit in managing the process ofcareer advancement. As this article suggests, the influence of various forms of PE fit oncareer success may prove to be useful avenue for future careers research and mayprovide additional insights for researchers, employees, employers and counselors.

References

Ackah, C. and Heaton, N. (2004), “The reality of ‘new’ careers for men and for women”, Journal ofEuropean Industrial Training, Vol. 28 Nos 2/3/4, pp. 141-58.

Adkins, C.L., Russel, C.J. and Werbel, J.D. (1994), “Judgments of fit in the selection process:the role of work value congruence”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 605-23.

Agarwal, N. (1981), “Determinants of executive compensation”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 20,pp. 36-45.

Allen, T., Eby, L., Poteel, M., Lentz, E. and Lima, L. (2004), “Career benefits associated withmentoring for proteges: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 1,pp. pp127-36.

Alvesson, M. (2000), “Social identity and the problem of loyalty in knowledge-intensivecompanies”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1101-23.

Alvesson, M. (2001), “Knowledge work: ambiguity, image and identity”, Human Relations, Vol. 54No. 7, pp. 863-86.

Anackwe, U.P., Hall, J.C. and Schor, S. (2000), “Knowledge-related skills and effective careermanagement”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 566-79.

Arthur, M.B. (1994), “The boundaryless career: a new perspective for organizational inquiry”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 295-306.

Arthur, M., Claman, P. and Defillipi, R. (1995), “Intelligent entreprise, intelligent career”,The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 7-22.

Arthur, M.B., Khapova, S.N. and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2005), “Career success in a boundarylesscareer world”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 177-202.

Aryee, S., Chay, Y.W. and Tom, H.H. (1994), “An examination of the antecedents of subjectivecareer success among a managerial sample in Singapore”, Human Relations, Vol. 47 No. 5,pp. 487-509.

Ashford, S. and Cummings, L.L. (1983), “Feedback as an individual resource: personal strategies ofcreating information”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 32, pp. 370-98.

JMP22,8

758

Barber, A.E. and Bretz, R.D. (2000), “Compensation, attraction, and retention”, in Rynes, S.L. andGerhart, B. (Eds), Compensation in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 32-60.

Baruch, Y. (2004), Managing Careers: Theory and Practice, FT-Prentice Hall, Pearson Education,Harlow.

Becker, G.S. (1964), Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Referenceto Education, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.

Becker, G.S. (1975), Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Billsberry, J. (2007), “Attracting for values: an empirical study of ASA’s attraction proposition”,Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 132-49.

Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ.

Bowen, D.E., Ledford, G.E. and Nathan, B.R. (1991), “Hiring for the organization, not the job”,Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 35-51.

Bretz, R.D. and Judge, T.A. (1994), “Person-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment:implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,Vol. 44, pp. 32-54.

Bretz, R.D., Rynes, S.L. and Gerhart, B. (1993), “Recruiter perceptions of applicant fit: implicationfor individual career preparation and job search behavior”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,Vol. 43, pp. 310-27.

Burt, R.S. (1997), “The contingent value of social capital”, Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 339-65.

Byrne, D. (1971), The Attraction Paradigm, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1994), “Pay preferences and job search decisions:a person-organization fit perspective”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 317-48.

Cable, D. and DeRue, D.S. (2002), “The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fitperceptions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 885-93.

Cannings, K. (1988), “The earnings of female and male middle managers”, Journal of HumanResources, Vol. 23, pp. 34-56.

Carless, S. (2005), “Person-job fit versus person-organization fit as predictors of organizationalattraction and job acceptance intentions: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 411-29.

Chatman, J. (1989), “Improving interactional organizational research: a model ofperson-organization fit”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 333-49.

Chatman, J.A. (1991), “Matching people and organizations: selectionand socializing in publicaccounting firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 459-84.

Chenevert, D. and Tremblay, M. (2002), “Managing career success in canadian organizations: isgender a determinant?”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 13No. 6, pp. 920-41.

Claes, R. and Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A. (1998), “Influences of early career experiences, occupationalgroup, and national culture on proactive career behavior”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,Vol. 52, pp. 357-78.

Cooper-Thomas, H.D., van Vianen, A. and Anderson, N. (2004), “Changes in person-organizationfit: the impact of socialization tactics and actual fit”, European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 52-78.

Cox, T.H. (1994), Cultural Diversity in Organizations, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. and Kessler, I. (2000), “Conequences of the psychological contract for theemployment relationship: a large scale survey”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37No. 7, pp. 903-30.

Career success

759

Crant, J.M. (1995), “The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among realestate agents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 532-7.

Crant, J.M. (2000), “Proactive behavior in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26,pp. 435-63.

Dalton, M. (1951), “Informal factors in career advancement”, American Journal of Sociology,Vol. 56, pp. 407-15.

Dawis, R.V. and Lofquist, L.H. (1984), A Psychology Theory of Work Adjustment, University ofMinnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. (1982), Corporate Cultures, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.

DeFillipi, R. and Arthur, M.B. (1994), “The boundaryless career: a competency-basedperspective”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 307-24.

Dreher, G. and Ash, R. (1990), “A comparative study of mentoring among men and women inmanagerial, professional, and technical positions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75,pp. 539-46.

Early, P.C. (1993), “East meets west meets midweast: further explorations of collectivistic andindividualistic work groups”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 319-48.

Eby, L.T., Butts, M. and Lockwood, A. (2003), “Predictors of success in the era of theboundaryless career”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, pp. 689-708.

Edwards, J.R. (1991), “Person-job fit: a conceptual integration, literature review, andmethodological critique”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Reviewof Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 6, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 283-357.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), “Perceived organizational support andemployee diligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75,pp. 51-9.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizationalsupport”, Journal of Applied Psychology., Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-7.

Endler, N.S. and Magnusson, D. (1976), “Personality and person by situation interaction”,in Endler, N.S. and Magnusson, D. (Eds), International Psychology and Personality,Hemisphere, New York, NY, pp. 1-25.

Erdogan, B. and Bauer, T.N. (2005), “Enhancing career benefits of employee proactivepersonality: the role of fit with jobs and organizations”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 4,pp. 859-91.

Erez, M. (2004), “Make management practice fit the national culture”, in Locke, E.A. (Ed.),Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 418-34.

Flood, P.C., Turner, T., Ramamoorthy, N. and Pearson, J. (2001), “Causes and consequences ofpsychological contracts among workers in the high technology and financial servicesindustries”, International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 1152-65.

Gattiker, U. and Larwood, L. (1988), “Predictors for managers’ career mobility, success, andsatisfaction”, Human Relations, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 569-91.

Godshalk, V.M. and Sosik, J.J. (2003), “Aiming for career success: the role of learning goalorientation in mentoring relationships”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63, pp. 417-37.

Gould, G. and Penley, L.E. (1984), “Career strategies and salary progression: a study of theirrelationships in a municipal bureaucracy”, Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, Vol. 34, pp. 244-65.

Granrose, C.S. and Baccili, P.A. (2006), “Do psychological contracts include boundaryless orprotean careers?”, Career Development International, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 163-82.

JMP22,8

760

Greenhaus, J., Parasuraman, S. and Wormley, W. (1990), “Effects of race on organizationalexperiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 64-86.

Greenhaus, J.H., Collanan, G. and Godshalk, V.M. (2000), Career Management,Thompson-South-Western, Mason, OH.

Gunz, H.P. and Jalland, R.M. (1996), “Managerial careers and business strategies”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 21, pp. 718-56.

Gunz, H.P., Jalland, R. and Evans, M.G. (1998), “New strategy, wrong managers? What you needto know about career streams”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12, pp. 21-37.

Hall, D.T. (1996), “Protean careers of the 21st century”, Academy of Management Executive,Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 8-16.

Hall, D. and Mirvis, P.H. (1995), “The new career contract: developing the whole person at midlifeand beyond”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 47, pp. 269-89.

Hall, D. and Moss, J.E. (1998), “The new protean career contract: helping organizations andemployees adapt”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 22-37.

Hall, F.S. and Hall, D.T. (1979), The Two-Career Couple, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Harris, S.G. and Mossholder, K.W. (1996), “The affective implications of perceived congruencewith culture dimensions during organizational transformation”, Journal of Management,Vol. 22, pp. 527-47.

Herriot, P. and Pemberton, C. (1995), New Deals: The Revolution in Managerial Careers,John Wiley, Chichester.

Hoffman, B.J. and Woehr, D.J. (2006), “A quantitative review of the relationship betweenperson-organization fit and behavioral outcomes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68,pp. 389-99.

Hofstede, G.H. (1980), Culture’s Consequences, Sage, London.

Holland, J.L. (1997), Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and WorkEnvironments, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.

Hui, C., Lee, C. and Rousseau, D.M. (2004), “Psychological contract and organizational citizenshipbehavior in China: investigating generalizability and instrumentality”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 311-21.

Jaskolka, G., Beyer, J.M. and Trice, H.M. (1985), “Measuring and predicting managerial success”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 189-205.

Judge, T.A., Cable, D.M., Boudreaw, J.W. and Bretz, R.D. (1995), “An empirical investigation ofthe predictors of executive career success”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 485-519.

Kanter, R.M. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Kirchmeyer, C. (1998), “Determinants of managerial career success: evidence and explanation ofmale/female differences”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 673-92.

Kristof, A. (1996), “Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations,measurement and implications”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 1-49.

Kristof-Brown, A.L., Jansen, K.J. and Colbert, A.E. (2002), “A policy-capturing study of thesimultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, pp. 985-93.

Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), “Consequences of individuals’ fitat work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, andperson-supervisor fit”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 281-342.

Lauver, K.J. and Kristof-Brown, A. (2001), “Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions ofperson-job and person-organization fit”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 59, pp. 454-70.

Career success

761

Lin, S. and Huang, Y. (2005), “The role of social capital in the relationship between human capitaland career mobility”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 507-21.

Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (1999), “The relationship between commitment and organizationalculture, subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change anddevelopment”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 365-73.

MacDermid, S.M., Lee, M.D., Buck, M. and Williams, M.L. (2001), “Alternative workarrangements among professionals and managers”, The Journal of Career Development,Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 305-17.

MacNeil, I.R. (1985), “Relational contract: what we do and do not know”, Wisconsin Law Review,Vol. 3, pp. 483-525.

McDonald, P., Brown, K. and Bradely, L. (2005), “Have traditional career paths given way toprotean ones?”, Career Development International, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 109-29.

McMillan-Capehart, M. (2005), “A configurational framework for diversity: socialization andculture”, Personnel Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 488-503.

Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991), “Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion,and motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 224-53.

Meglino, B.M. and Ravlin, E.C. (1998), “Individual values in organizations: concepts,controversies, and research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 351-89.

Melamed, T. (1996), “Career success: an assessment of a gender-specific model”, Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 217-42.

Morley, M.J. (2007), “Person-organization fit”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2,pp. 109-17.

Morris, T. and Empson, L. (1998), “Organization and expertsie: an exploration of knowledgebases and the management of accounting and consulting firms”, Accounting,Organizations and Society, Vol. 23 Nos 5/6, pp. 609-24.

Nabi, G. (2001), “The relationship between HRM, social support and subjective career successamong men and women”, Internationsl Journal of Manpower, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 457-74.

Nabi, G. (2003), “Situational characteristics and subjective career success”, International Journalof Manpower, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 653-71.

Newstrom, J. and Davis, K. (2002), Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work,McGraw-Hill-Irwin, New York, NY.

Nikolaou, I. (2003), “Fitting the person to the organization: examining the personality-jobperformance relationship from a new perspective”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 639-48.

Ng, T., Eby, L., Sorensen, D. and Feldman, D. (2005), “Predictors of objective and subjectivecareer success: a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 367-408.

Niles, S. (1998), “Achivement goals and means: a cultural comparison”, Journal of Cross-culturalPsychology, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 656-67.

Noe, R.A. (1996), “Is career management related to employee development and performance?”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, pp. 119-33.

Noordin, F., Williams, T. and Zimmer, C. (2002), “Career commitment in collectivist andindividualist cultures: a comparative study”, International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 35-54.

Odom, Y.R., Boxx, W. and Dunn, M.G. (1990), “Organizational cultures, commitment, satisfaction,and cohesion”, Public Productivity and Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 157-69.

JMP22,8

762

Okabe, Y. (2002), “Culture or employment systems? Accounting for the attitudinal differencesbetween British and Japanese managers”, The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 285-301.

Oliver, J. (1997), “The new-look fast track”, Management Today, March, pp. 86-9.

O’Neil, B.S. and Adya, M. (2007), “Knowledge sharing and the psychological contract”, Journal ofManagerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 411-36.

O’Reilly, C.A. (1989), “Corporations, culture, and commitment: motivation and social control inorganizations”, California Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 9-25.

O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), “People and organizational culture: a profilecomparison approach to assessing person-organization fit”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 487-516.

Ostroff, C., Shin, Y. and Kinicki, A.J. (2005), “Multiple perspectives of congruence: relationshipsbetween value congruence and employee attidudes”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 26, pp. 591-623.

Pappas, J. and Flaherty, K.E. (2006), “The moderating role of individual-difference variables incompensation research”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 19-35.

Parker, P. (2002), “Working with the intelligent career model”, Journal of EmploymentCounseling, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 83-94.

Parkes, L., Bochner, S. and Schneider, S. (2001), “Person-organization fit across cultures:an empirical investigation of individualism and collectivism”, Applied Psychology:An International Review, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 81-108.

Peiperl, M. and Baruch, Y. (1997), “Back to square zero: the post-corporate career”,Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 7-22.

Pfeffer, J. (1977), “Effects of an MBA degree and socioeconomic origins on business schoolgraduates’ salaries”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 698-705.

Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row, London.

Piasentin, K. and Chapman, D. (2006), “Subjective person-organization fit: bridging the gap betweenconceptualization and measurement”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 202-21.

Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of theliterature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.

Robinson, S.L., Kraatz, M.S. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994), “Changing obligations and the psychologicalcontract: a longitudinal study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 137-52.

Rosenbaum, J.E. (1989), “Organizational career systems and employee misperceptions”, inArthur, M.B., Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S. (Eds), Handbook of Career Theory, CambridgeUniversity Press, New York, NY, pp. 329-53.

Rousseau, D.M. (1995), Pschological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written andUnwritten Agreements, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Rousseau, D.M. (2004), “Psychological contracts in the workplace: understanding the ties thatmotivate”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 120-7.

Rousseau, D. and Parks, J. (1992), “The contracts of individuals and organizations”, inCummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15,JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-47.

Schneider, B. (1987), “The people make the place”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 437-53.

Schneider, B. (2001), “Fits about fit”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 50 No. 1,pp. 141-52.

Schneider, B., Goldtein, H.W. and Smith, D.B. (1995), “The ASA framework: an update”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 747-73.

Career success

763

Seibert, S.E., Crant, J.M. and Kraimer, M.L. (1999), “Proactive personality and career success”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 416-27.

Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L. and Crant, J. (2001), “What do proactive people do? A longitudinalmodel of linking proactive personality and career success”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54No. 4, pp. 845-74.

Sekiguchi, T. (2007), “A contingency perspective of the importance of PJ fit and PO fit inemployee selection”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 118-31.

Sigler, T.H. and Pearson, C.M. (2000), “Creating an empowering culture: examining therelationship between organizational culture and perceptions of empowerment”, Journal ofQuality Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 27-52.

Stewart, L. and Gudykunst, W. (1982), “Differential factors influencing the hierarchical level andnumber of promotions of males and females within an organization”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 586-97.

Sturges, J. (2004), “The individualization of the career and its implications for leadership andmanagement development”, in Storey, J. (Ed.), Leadership in Organizations: Current Issuesand Key Trends, Routledge, London, pp. 249-68.

Sullivan, S.E. (1999), “The changing nature of careers: a review and research agenda”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 457-84.

Tempest, S., McKinlay, A. and Starkey, K. (2004), “Careering alone: careers and social capital in thefinancial services and television industries”, Human Relations, Vol. 57 No. 12, pp. 1523-45.

Terborg, J.R. (1981), “International psychology and research on human behavior inorganizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 569-76.

Tharenou, P. (1997), “Managerial career advancement”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds),International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,Vol. 12, John Wiley,New York, NY, pp. 39-94.

Tharenou, P. (2001), “Going up? Do traits and informal social processes predict advancing inmanagement?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 1005-17.

Tharenou, P., Latimar, S. and Conroy, D. (1994), “How to make it to the top? An examination ofinfluences on women’s and men’s managerial advancement”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 899-931.

Thomas, D.C. and Au, K. (2002), “The effects of cultural differences on behavioral responses tolow job satisfaction”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 309-26.

Tinsley, H.A. (2000), “The congruence myth: an analysis of the efficacy of person-environment fitmodel”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 56, pp. 147-79.

Tosi, H.L., Werner, S., Katz, J.P. and Gomez-Meja, L. (2000), “How much does performancematter? A meta-analysis of CEO pay studies”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 301-39.

Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism, Westview Press, Boudler, CO.

Triandis, H., Bontempo, R., Vilareal, M., Masaaki, A. and Lucca, N. (1988), “Individualism andcollectivism: cross-cultural perspectives on self-in-group relationships”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 328-38.

Turban, D. and Dougherty, T. (1994), “Role of protege personality in receipt of mentoring andcareer success”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 688-702.

Vanderberghe, C. (1999), “Organizational cultue, person-culture fit, and turnover: a replication inthe health care industry”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 175-84.

Van Emmerik, I.J.H. (2004), “The more you can get the better: mentoring constellations andintrinsic career success”, Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 578-94.

JMP22,8

764

Van Vianen, A.E.M., Pater, I.E. and Van Dijk, F.V. (2007), “Work value fit and turnover intention:same-source or different-source fit”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2,pp. 188-202.

Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A. and Wagner, S.H. (2003), “A meta-analysis of relation betweenperson-organization fit and work attitudes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63, pp. 473-89.

Wagner, J.A. and Moch, M.K. (1986), “Individualism-collectivism: concept and measure”, Groupand Organization Studies, Vol. 11, pp. 280-304.

Wallace, J.E. (2001), “The benefits of mentoring for female lawyers”, Journal of VocationalBehavior, Vol. 58, pp. 366-91.

Wanous, J.P. (1992), Organizational Entry: Recruitment, Selection, Orientation and Socializationof Newcomers, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Wayne, S.J., Shore, M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Perceived organizational support andleader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 82-111.

Weiss, H.M. and Adler, S. (1984), “Personality and organizational behavior”, in Staw, B.M. andCummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 6, JAI Press, Greenwich,CT, pp. 1-50.

Werbel, J.D. and Gilliland, S.W. (1999), “Person-environment fit in the selection process”,in Ferris, G.E. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 17,Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 209-43.

Whitely, W., Dougherty, T. and Dreher, G. (1991), “Relationship of career mentoring andsocioeconomic origin to managers’ and professionals’ early career progress”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 331-51.

Young, A.M. and Hurlic, D. (2007), “Gender enactment at work: the importance of gender andgender-related behavior to person-organizational fit and career decisions”, Journal ofManagerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 168-87.

Zabusky, S.E. and Barley, S.R. (1996), “Redefining success”, in Osterman, P. (Ed.), BrokenLadders: Managerial Careers in the New Economy, Oxford University Press, New York,NY, pp. 185-214.

Further reading

Schneider, B. (1990), Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Tannenbaum, A., Kavcic, B., Rosher, M., Viahello, M. and Wieser, G. (1974), Hierarchy inOrganizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Corresponding authorHassan Ballout can be contacted at: ballout@idm.net.1b

Career success

765

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints