Career Management in High‐Performing Organizations: A Set‐Theoretic Approach

• Date: 01 May 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21786
• Published date: 01 May 2017

Human Resource Management, May–June 2017, Vol. 56, No. 3. Pp. 501–518

© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21786

Correspondence to: Ans De Vos, Antwerp Management School, Sint Jacobsmarkt 9-13, Antwerp 2000, Belgium,

E-mail: Ans.DeVos@ams.ac.be.

1976, 2002), the boundaryless (Arthur, 2014;

Arthur & Rousseau, 1996), and the kaleidoscope

career (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005) consider the

individual as the primary actor in career man-

agement. Following from this, a wide body of

research has addressed the nature and anteced-

ents of individual career management impact

upon individual indicators of objective (e.g.,

income, hierarchical position) and subjective

With responsibility for career man-

agement shifting from the orga-

nization to the individual, the

majority of recent career studies

have addressed career manage-

ment at the level of the individual employee

(e.g., Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014; Gubler, Arnold,

& Coombs, 2014; Strauss, Griffin & Parker, 2011).

“New career” concepts such as the protean (Hall,

CAREER MANAGEMENT IN HIGH-

PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONS:

ASET-THEORETIC APPROACH

ANS DE VOS AND BART CAMBRÉ

The aim of this study is to investigate the elements of organizational career man-

agement (OCM) that can lead to strong organizational performance. The grow-

ing 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 perfor-

mance, thereby including the fi rm’s human capital composition. Surveys were

administered to the HR directors of 293 organizations. We apply a relati vely 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 asso-

ciated with high performance. However, based on the fsQCA, three confi gura-

tions are identifi ed in which OCM is associated with high performance. The most

prevalent confi guration combined supportive and developmental practices with

I-deals and individual responsibility for career management. We conclude with a

discussion of the implications of our fi ndings, and address the utility of adopting

a confi gurational approach in career research. ©2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: organizational career management, new career, qualitative compar-

ative analysis, fi rm high performance

502 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2017

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

This study ... breaks

new ground by

examining four

dimensions of OCM

that are consistent

with recent thinking

about contemporary

careers: (1)

supportive and

developmental

practices, (2)

development

I-deals, (3) individual

responsibility, and (4)

internal consensus.

In addition, we

address an important

contextual element,

namely, the added

value and uniqueness

of the firm’s human

capital composition.

confronted with a so-called “career management

paradox”: while investing in careers can be critical

for the long-term continuity of the organization,

there are risks associated with this investment

due to the unpredictability of both the organiza-

tional reality as well as individuals’ career choices

(De Cuyper & De Witte, 2011; Hamori, Bonet, &

Cappelli, 2011). This causes some organizations to

doubt the necessity of this type of investment, and

to play safe by hiring rather than growing talent

(De Vos & Dries, 2013).

Although existing research helps to substanti-

ate the relationship between OCM and outcomes,

several gaps in the literature exist, which this study

aims to address. First, there is a lack of research on

OCM taking a broader perspective. Most studies

addressing OCM are limited and focus only on

career management practices without addressing

the involvement of the individual or line manag-

ers (e.g., Baruch & Peiperl, 2000; Eby et al., 2005;

Krishnan & Maheshwari, 2011; Segers & Inceoglu,

2012). Second, extant research tends to follow a

traditional approach toward OCM, including top-

down practices and a focus on promotion systems,

despite the articulated need for a more develop-

mental and supportive approach that is more in

line with the characteristics of the new career

(Baruch, 2006; Segers & Inceoglu, 2012; Van der

Heijde & Van der Heijden, 2006). This study fills

these gaps and breaks new ground by examining

four dimensions of OCM that are consistent with

recent thinking about contemporary careers: (1)

supportive and developmental practices, (2) devel-

opment I-deals, (3) individual responsibility, and

(4) internal consensus. In addition, we address an

important contextual element, namely, the added

value and uniqueness of the firm’s human capital

composition. Third, given that OCM implies an

investment of time and money (Baruch, 2006), it

is relevant to address whether OCM is beneficial

to the organization. Surprisingly, however, most

career studies tend to focus on individual rather

than organizational outcomes. We fill this gap by

investigating to what extent firm performance

can be explained by OCM.

Confi gurational Approach

To capture the associations between OCM dimen-

sions and firm performance, we take a configu-

rational approach, claiming that “organizations

are best understood as clusters of interconnected

structures and practices, rather than as modular

or loosely coupled entities whose components

can be understood in isolation” (Fiss, 2007, p.

1190). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)

is an analytical technique that allows discerning

combinations of career management dimensions

(e.g., career satisfaction, perceived employability)

career success (e.g., Abele & Wiese, 2008; De Vos,

De Clippeleer, & Dewilde, 2009; De Vos & Soens,

2008; Direnzo, Greenhaus, & Weer, 2015; Eby,

Butts, & Lockwood, 2003; King, 2004; Kossek,

Roberts, Fisher, & Demarr, 1998; Sturges, Conway,

& Liefooghe, 2010; Sullivan & Baruch, 2009;

Waters, Briscoe, Hall, & Wang, 2014; Zacher,

2014).

Although recent voices have

renewed the attention for the orga-

nizational context in which careers

take place (e.g., Baruch, 2006; Clarke,

2013; De Vos & Dries, 2013; Dries,

Van Acker, & Verbruggen, 2012; Eby,

Allen, & Brinley, 2005; Lee, Felps,

& Baruch, 2014; Lips-Wiersma &

Hall, 2007; Segers & Inceoglu, 2012),

a lack of insight remains into the

organizational benefits of manag-

ing careers. A core characteristic of

contemporary careers is that they

have become less predictable, and

this makes career management

particularly challenging for orga-

nizations (Clarke, 2013). From an

organizational viewpoint, career

management “is concerned with the

organization carrying out activities

relevant to the career development

of its employees” (Baruch & Peiperl,

2000, p. 349). Differently stated,

organizational career management

(OCM) implies an investment in

human capital, which requires time

and money but also holds the risk

that this investment will not pay off,

for example, in case of early turn-

over (Crook, Todd, Combs, Woehr,

& Ketchen, 2011). Investing in OCM

can hence be considered as “a risk

management process, whereby orga-

nizations invest in their people, but

the people are free to leave upon

their will” (Baruch, 2006, p. 132).

With the observed weakening of

the employment relationship and a

rise of career patterns taking place

across rather than within organizations (Cappelli

& Keller, 2013), the question can be raised to what

extent it is still beneficial for organizations to

invest in the career development of their employ-

ees, and what these investments should entail.

However, evidence still shows that investing in

the development and retention of firm-specific

human capital is beneficial for organizational per-

formance (Crook et al., 2011). Organizations are