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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

Career success
Career success
The effects of human capital,
person-environment fit and organizational
support 741
Hassan I. Ballout Received September 2006
Faculty of Economic Sciences and Business Administration, Revised August 2007
The Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon Accepted August 2007

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review relevant literatures on career success and develop a
theoretical framework and testable propositions concerning how human capital, person-environment fit
and organizational support relate to career success. Whilst acknowledging the substantial literature that
has accumulated regarding the various antecedents and operationalizations involved in employees’ career
success, there is little research as how person-environment fit and career success are related.
Design/methodology/approach – Literature outlining approaches to career success is summarized
and research at the intersection of person-environment fit and organizational support/career success
are 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 important
antecedents of career success. Knowledge of career changes and these antecedents help individuals
and organizations manage career success.
Research limitations/implications – Future research should examine empirically the linkages
suggested by the paper along with other relationships asserted or implied by person-environment fit
and career success literature as mentioned in the paper.
Practical implications – Both employers and employees may benefit from integrating different
types 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 into
careers that are compatible with their work environments.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to the literature by being one of the first to examine the
effects 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

Introduction
Career success and person-environment fit have received significant attention in studies
of the workplace. This is due to the general recognition that these concepts have
important implications for individual behaviors and work outcomes and both affect the
implementation process of the psychological employment contract. The psychological
contract is generally defined in terms of a set of “individual beliefs, shaped by the
organization, regarding terms of an exchange agreement between individuals and their Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 22 No. 8, 2007
organizations” (Rousseau, 1995, p. 9). One specific aspect of this contract between pp. 741-765
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
The author thanks an anonymous reviewer for insightful comments. DOI 10.1108/02683940710837705
JMP employers and employees has to do with the degree of person-environment fit (Rousseau
22,8 and Parks, 1992). Person-environment (PE) fit is defined as the compatibility that occurs
when individual and work environment characteristics are well matched (Kristof-Brown
et al., 2005). Research on person-organization fit indicates that organizational values are a
good predictor of job choices and that individuals preferred jobs or careers in
organizations which displayed values similar to their own (Schneider, 1987; Tinsley,
742 2000). In particular, researchers have suggested that different types of fit that fall under
the notion of PE fit play significant roles in job or career choice decisions and that each
form 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 work
for more organizations and on a broader range of projects (Tempest et al. 2004), socialized
career paths and policies that support career performance and job choice behavior are
expected to become increasingly important to their advancement.
Given the importance of career succes for individuals’ perceptions of satisfaction
with 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 to
take into consideration the role of PE fit in helping individuals identify their career
options and career decisions to fully understand the dynamics of the career
advancement process. PE fit helps determine how well career actors fit within a
particualr work groups or a sub-culture because the “fit” includes feeling comfortable
with the organization (O’Reilly, 1989). We believe that PE fit framework to
understanding careers is a worthwhile pursuit to explore the ways in which the
practice of career progression may be shaped by personal and organizational
characteristics or values that career actors appreciate and share to achieve career
success. Indeed, PE fit provides a significant level of interaction of individual and
situational variables for explaining individual employability and career success. Since
PE fit serves many purposes including increasing employee satisfaction and
commitment, it has a direct effect on individual career satisfaction and advancement.
In trying to improve selection processes, organizations look to attracting
individuals that exhibit values similar to their own. Individuals, in turn, are
attracted to and seek career opportunities with organizations that believe they fit in
and realize their career ambitions. Thus, the goal of this paper was to explore issues
relating to the influence of PE fit and organizational support on career success. We first
provide a review of research on approaches to career success. We then review three
forms of PE fit and relate them to career success. Finally, we address the effects of
organizational support on individual career success. Our research contributes to the
career success literature by providing an additional step toward increasing the
relevance of PE fit framework to models of career choice and behavior.

Approaches to career success

A number of competing approaches have been identified to explain career success
predictors. The three well-known approaches are the individual, the structural, and the
behavioral perspectives (Rosenbaum, 1989; Aryee et al., 1994).
The first approach draws heavily on individual variables found in the popular
literature of human capital and motivational theories. This approach focuses on the
individual as the one who develops his/her own human capital and therefore Career success
maximizes his/her education and skill investments for achieving success in careers.
The second approach relies on the management theory of the firm and vacancy models
and postulates that organizational factors such as organizational size and internal
promotional practices are prerequisites for successful individual careers in organizations.
The third approach assumes that career achievement is a function of certain career
strategies including political influence behavior. 743
The individual approach
The human capital theory provides a theoretical basis for understanding the individual
approach to career success. Human capital theory (Becker, 1975) suggests that
individuals who invest the most in human capital attributes such as education,
training, and experience are expected to show higher level of work performance and
subsequently obtain higher organizational rewards. According to this theory, an
individual’s career progression and success is contingent upon the quantity and
quality of human assets one brings to the labor market (Becker, 1964) and that the
skills and experiences that individuals bring to their work are related to their
compensation (Agarwal, 1981). To the extent that human capital factors influence the
performance of employees, greater personal attributes would enable them to better
perform their job, and their pay should increase accordingly to compensate them for
the additional amount of human capital required by their job. Recent empirical
evidence supports the positive linkage between human capital variables and career
success (Ng et al., 2005; Tharenou, 2001).

The structural approach

The structural approach to career success contends that certain structural characteristics
help and others hinder individuals in their career advancement. Under this approach,
certain organizational factors such as organizational size and internal promotional
practices influence career aspirants’ success. The management theory of the firm
supports the structural approach. That is, the central thesis of managerialism is that
compensation (objective measure of career success) is primarily a function of
organizational size (Tosi et al., 2000). Managerialists assert that the relationship
between career success and organizational size is expected since large organizations have
more hierarchical systems and engage more in complex and diversified activities. This
suggests that large organizations are more likely to facilitate career mobility and success
so that individuals’ pay increases as they move up the corporate hierarchy. As Gattiker
and Larwood (1988) note, the frequency of promotion is a valuable measure of career
mobility and success, since it is important for individuals’ upward climb on a corporate
ladder. Oliver (1997) asserts that large organizations still reward their “fast-trackers” with
upward career paths and Hall and Moss (1998) consider that such promised career paths
are internal parts of the structure of large organizations. Recent empirical evidence
supports the structural approach to career paths (McDonald et al., 2005).

The behavioral approach

The behavioral approach assumes that individuals have certain control over their
career choice and advancement and can therefore assess their career prospects and
enact appropriate career plans and tactics that contribute to career success (Gould and
JMP Penley, 1984; Greenhaus et al. 2000). The underlying assumption of this approach is
22,8 that career aspirants should take a proactive role in managing their own careers and
pursue career strategies that are congruent within the context of organizational
strategies (Gunz and Jalland, 1996; Gunz et al., 1998), rather than relying passively on
organizational career systems. Gould and Penley (1984) suggest that employees use
both interpersonal and intrapersonal career strategies since such behavioral strategies
744 (self-nomination and networking) can help them receive favorable performance
evaluations. They found a link between the use of such strategies and managers’ salary
progression. Nabi (2003) found self-nomination and networking mediated the
relationship between career prospects and intrinsic career success.

Contemporary approaches to career success

Recent 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) suggest
that “career success is a cumulative outcome, the product of behaviors aggregated over
a relatively long period of time.” Building on Crant’s (1995) proactive personality
framework and on the interactional psychology perspective (Weiss and Adler, 1984;
Terborg, 1981), they argue that proactive individuals receive greater career outcomes
and are more effective in shaping their own work environments than less proactive
individuals. They found support for the hypothesized positive relationship between
proactive personality and career success.
Although previous approaches to career success were driven by the strong belief
that career success was rationally and predictably determined by a set of human,
structural, and behavioral variables, recent approaches to careers have been driven by
the new realities of organizational restructuring and the alterations in the
psychological employment contract (Arthur et al., 1995; Sullivan, 1999). As a result,
it is useful to examine contemporary perspectives of careers since the nature of
employment relationship has fundamentally changed in the past years in ways that
make the employer-employee contractual relationship temporary rather than fixed and
individual career progression lateral rather than linear.
In the recently published studies on the state of today’s career realities, three
particularly important conceptualizations of career success emerged: the boundaryless
career, the intelligent career and the post-corporate career.
The concept of “boundaryless” career initiated by DeFillipi and Arthur (1994) and
Arthur (1994) is based on a transactional contract, which is short-termism and involves a
new form of employability in which the individual, rather than the organization, takes an
active rather than passive role in managing his or her career. Individuals are expected to
work for more firms and on a broader range of projects. In this respect, the theory of
boundaryless career takes a behavioralistic/competency-based approach in which
multiskilling is essential. Portable skills, the motivation to tolerate change and ambiguity,
foci for new learning, personal identification with portfolio careers and the development of
multiple networks of relationships are all integral aspects of the boundaryless career.
An additional concept termed “protean career” was followed, with the focus on the
individual as the one in control (Hall, 1996). This new form of career is mostly
described as an individual-focused approach, in which individuals are responsible for
their careers and that their unique human resource qualities (including human capital
and capabilities) drive their success in multi-employer settings. Under this perspective,
the contract is a contract with one’s self and one’s work, rather with the organization, Career success
and is based on continuous learning and the development of self-knowledge and
adapablity. Individuals in protean careers will have several careers (Hall and Mirvis,
1995) and thus have to adapt to new realities of employment changes across multiple
firms and boundaries. In short, protean careers are fluid, flexible, internally-determined
and involve continuous learning and growth in the pursuit of career goals (Hall and
Mirvis, 1995; Sullivan, 1999; MacDermid et al., 2001). 745
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 is
fundamental. 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 work
motivation (in a particular occupation or industry), the construction of personal values
and interests, and the identification with the employing firm’s culture. Knowing-how has
to do with an individual’s career-relevant skills, abilities and competencies available to
support current role behaviors. Knowing-whom refers to an individual’s set of
interpersonal relationships within and outside current work behavior available to support
career opportunities and employability. As Baruch (2004, p.88) indicated “why, how, and
whom are primarily individual assets of motivation, skills and relationships.” In brief, the
intelligent career places a great deal of emphasis on individual competencies and role
behaviors, and on the connections between these competencies (application of the
different forms of knowing) and organizational employment processes and practices.
The concept of post-corporate career offered by Peiperl and Baruch (1997) presents
somehow a different behavioral view in which vision or self-identity is fundamental.
The concept suggests that career paths are horizontally and not vertically evolving
over time as individual and organizational career realities are changing in the
“post-corporate world”. According to Peiperl and Baruch (1997), current and future
careers focus on “horizontal links that transcend geographical and organizational
boundaries” and as such links continue to grow, individuals who have scarce skills and
competencies will have more opportunities in establishing their professional or
entrepreneurial career. As careers become increasingly “intelligents” (Arthur et al.,
1995; Parker, 2002), the traditional vertical career paths have been replaced by
post-organizational careers in which individuals’ careers are rapidly advancing
through professional or industry-based identity than by upward organizational-based
identity. The underlying assumption of this approach is that career aspirants should
take a professional or entrepreneurship role in managing their own careers and pursue
career strategies that fall in line with their personal competencies and occupational
excellence. Studies by Morris and Empson (1998), Alvesson (2001), and others, have
analyzed managerial and organizational pratcices regarding career prospects from the
perspective of “cultural matching” and knowledge management base. For example,
Alvesson (2000, 2001) suggested that, through the active participation of individuals in
knowledge-intensive firms, the identity of career actor is reconstructed and his/her
loyalty is reinforced by top management to fit into the norms and values prescribed by
the corporate culture of the organization (person-culture fit). The reconstruction of
corporate identity constitutes the individual as a product of the social techniques of
power relations. The prospects of career success involves a commitment to hard work
and of being “professional” according to local standards. Individuals are encouraged to
define themselves as the kind of people who are influential in creating and maintaining
JMP a particular career identity that can fit to a community of people. Consequently, social
22,8 identity and “cultural matching” at work in terms of person-job fit and
person-organization fit become crucial to employee commitment and career
advancement in knowledge-intensive firms (Alvesson, 2001).
In the career literature, career success has been partitioned into extrinsic and
intrinsic dimensions (Gattiker and Larwood, 1988; Judge et al., 1995; Melamed, 1996).
746 Extrinsic success represents the objective component of career success, and refers to
observable career accomplishments or outcomes, such as pay, promotions, ascendancy,
and occupational status (Jaskolla et al., 1985). Intrinsic success represents the
subjective component of career success, and refers to individuals’ feelings and
reactions to their own careers, and is usually assessed in terms of psychological
success such as career satisfaction, career commitment, and job satisfaction (Gattiker
and Larwood, 1988; Judge et al., 1995). We contend that the subjective career success
reflects the natural flow of the individual’s perceptions of satisfaction and success in
work activities or career roles. The emphasis is on the person rather than the
organization. Specifics of the self (achievement of personal goals and needs) dictate the
ways in which individual promised paths are established. As Hall (1996) noted,
subjective career success becomes more relevant since an individual has a potentially
greater responsibility to take in career development. From the subjective side,
individuals view their career success as a function of their own internal standards and
perceptions of satisfaction and success in social networks of relationships.
Career success may be conceptualized in terms of the desired work and pschological
outcomes that individuals hold about their careers over the span of their lifetime.
Including both objective and subjective components of career success is important
since career success is often operationalized in terms of both extrinsic (tangible) and
intrinsic (affective and less tangible) measures (Greenhaus et al. 1990; Turban and
Dougherty, 1994; Allen et al., 2004; Ng et al., 2005). In this study, the focus is on both
objective and subjective career success. Although we acknowledge that these represent
different outcomes of one’s career experience, the phrase “career success” is used here
to include both indicators of the construct.
While previous career literature has been useful in identifying several categories of
influences on career success, little research on the effect of person-environment fit on
career success has been conducted. First, we introduce the effect of human capital on
career 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 in
careers are discussed.

Human capital and career success

First, early career research typically linked demographic and personal factors to career
success. For example, demographic factors such as age and marital status and personal
factors such as education and experience were found to be strong determinants of
career success (Dalton, 1951; Pfeffer, 1977; Hall and Hall, 1979; Gould and Penley,
1984). More recently, empirical evidence supports the idea that personal and
socio-demographic characteristics are strong predictors of career success (Ng et al.,
2005; Kirchmeyer, 1998). Research evidence indicates that human capital variables
have a significant impact on career success because they explain a large proportion of
the variation in salary (Chenevert and Tremblay, 2002; Cannings, 1988; Jaskolla et al.,
1985) as well as in the number of promotions (Stewart and Gudykunst, 1982). Career success
Researchers have found personal investments in education and experience to be the
strongest and most consistent predictors of career progression (Tharenou et al., 1994;
Dreher and Ash, 1990). Kirchmeyer (1998) found work experience and tenure to be
strongly related to objective and subjective career success. As careers become more
uncertain, these personal and portable characteristics become more critical, perhaps
more than ever, for career actors that are facing different models of career success. 747
Thus, based on past research, we propose:
P1. Human capital factors, including education level, work investment, work
experience, and the number of hours worked are each positively related to
career success.

Person-environment fit and career success

The degree of similarity or fit between a person and the work environment has recently
attracted 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, dominant
conceptual forces in the field” (Schneider, 2001, p. 142). The concept is also viewed as “a
comprehensive notion that necessarily includes one’s compatibility with multiple systems
in the work environment” (Kristof-Brown et al., 2002, p. 985).
The underlying assumption of the PE fit perspective is that the degree of fit or
match between people and their environment produce important outcomes or benefits
for employees (Van Vianen et al., 2007; Lauver and Kristof-Brown, 2001). Theories of
PE fit draw on organizational psychology in that they consider how personal and
situational characteristics combine to influence individuals’ performances and other
behaviors in a given environment. The PE fit theory has been used extensively to
explain 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 or
psychology (Dawis and Lofquist, 1984; Holland, 1997), and personnel
attraction-selection-attrition framework (Schneider et al., 1995; Billsberry, 2007).
In light of the PE fit studies, multiple perspectives and constructs of fit have
emerged 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’Reilly
et al., 1991; Adkins et al., 1994; Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Werbel and
Gilliland, 1999; Parkes et al., 2001; Carless, 2005; Morley, 2007). Most PE fit studies
have compared individual attributes (needs and values) and situational/organizational
characteristics (job demands and occupational type) for predicting and explaining the
beneficial outcomes associated with increased fit.
Given the different perspectives on fit and the relationship of PE fit constructs to
people’s career-related behaviors (career involvement and career success) and to
organizational processes (organizational attraction and selection), our interest lies
predominately with specific notions of fit, namely PJ fit, PO fit, and PC fit. We specifically
focus on these three types of fit since they impact job or career-focused outcomes and are
useful to enquire into PE fit and career success linkage.
Previous research includes the use of PJ, PO, and PC fit perceptions to provide a
match or a congruence explanation of individual differences in job choice decisions and
proactive career behaviors (Cable and Judge, 1994; Cable and DeRue, 2002; Erdogan and
JMP Bauer, 2005). Werbel and Gilliland (1999) suggested to including different forms of fit in
22,8 personnel 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’ behaviors
and their work environment, they are acknowledged to have their progressive
application in various allied areas of social and behavioral sciences (Morley, 2007).
748
Person-job fit and career success
Person-job fit is defined as the fit between the abilities of a person and the demands of
the 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 concerns
the compatibility between individuals and the specific jobs or tasks they are required to
perform in a given contractual relationship. She added that the assessment that
individuals make concerning the match between their abilities and those of job
requirements are likely to determine the fit. Conceptually, the relative importance of PJ fit
is 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 form
of PJ fit occurs when individuals’ needs and desires are commensurate with what the job
supplies (job attributes) in order to be performed (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Research
addressing employee selection or career choice practices has traditionally focused on
achieving PJ fit where job applicants or career actors assess the degree of match between
their KSA and the job or career requirements using certain selection and hiring
techniques such as job analysis, personality assessment, and the use of realistic job
previews (Werbel and Gilliland, 1999; Bowen et al., 1991; Wanous, 1992). Researchers
demonstrated that high PJ fit has a number of positive outcomes. PE fit has been
positively related to job-and-career-focused outcomes (job satisfaction, career
satisfaction, occupational commitment), career involvement, organizational
commitment, and career success, and negatively related to employee turnover (Cable
and 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) may
be 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 careers
that utilize their KSA (Carless, 2005) and that PJ fit was strongly related to their career
satisfaction and occupational commitment (Cable and DeRue, 2002).
From an individual perspective, the abilities and competencies that career actors bring
to meet job-and-career-related requirements are likely to increase their choice or
adjustment to jobs or careers that are congruent with their KSA and/or career-relevant
personality types. Studies have shown that employees’ intellectual capital and scarce
skills have become highly marketable in high technology and financial services and
television industries (Flood et al., 2001; Tempest et al., 2004), and that proactive employees
shape their environments and engage in career behaviors that have positive effect on their
career progression and satisfaction (Crant, 2000; Seibert et al., 2001). A stronger sense of
PJ fit is likely to occur when career actors’ KSA and competencies are consistent with the
requirements of their perceived career contracts (job demands).
 As discussed earlier, the PJ fit between employee and employer is based on the idea of Career success
the psychological contract. One of the key issues of a psychological contract is the extent to
which 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 of
contractual arrangements. Two basic types of contracts have been identified –
transactional and relational (MacNeil, 1985; Robinson et al., 1994) – and each type contains
elements of different types of careers espoused by specific types of employees. A 749
transactional contract typically involves a short-term monetary exchange of specific
contributions and benefits or inducements, with the employer contracting for specific job
opportunities with very specific skills and/or positions and then compensating the
contracting employee for targeted performance (Hui et al., 2004; Ackah and Heaton, 2004).
Employers with psychological contracts are likely to select and hire employees based on
job-related skills and career-related knowledge needed for competent performance in work
roles. As for employees, they expect transactional contracts to provide immediate direct
rewards (pay) and other motivational aspects (training, transferable skills, career
experiences) that enhance their career employability. Therefore, PJ fit is most directly
relevant in selecting and/or promoting employees for specific skills or duties that are to be
satisfactorily performed under the transactional contract. For example, employees
acquiring highly portable and marketable skills may take advantage of an opportunity for
inter-organizational mobility by leveraging such skills to renegotiate their contract with
their current employer (Arthur et al., 2005). They may also seek career opportunities in a
variety of organizations and negotiate work arrangements across their life course and
enjoy occupational advancement and mobility across different jobs, industries, and
organizations. As such, employees may see themselves as fitting particular types of
careers such as “boundaryless” or “entrepreneurial” careers that are increasingly prevalent
in 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 in
career advancement and that “individual qualities and work environment factors combine
to facilitate individuals entering and advancing in management in hierarchical
organizations”. 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 of
knowledge-related skills to be positively related to career management strategies such
as personal learning, goal setting, career strategies, and career decision making. Zabusky
and Barley (1996) noted, however, that employee careers are seen as “careers of
achievements” in terms of skills and behaviors, rather than seen in terms of an individual’s
hierarchical advancement. Individual careers are termed “intelligent careers”, with the
focus on the individual as the one in control (Arthur et al., 1995). One fundamental
characteristics of an “intelligent career” is “know how” manifested in personal qualities
such as career competencies, skills, knowledge, and capabilities. Contrary to Schneider’s
attraction-selection-attrition framework of PO fit of organizational choices, Billsberry
(2007) found that graduates are attracted to choose particular types of jobs rather than
organizational 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.
JMP This leads to the proposition that employees’ perceptions of PJ fit will have positive
22,8 impact on their career success in transactional psychological contracts:
P2. PJ fit is likely to be positively related to career success in employee
transactional psychological contracts.

Person-organization fit and career success

750 Defined as “the compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when at least
one entity provides what the other needs or they share similar fundamental
characteristics, or both” (Kristof, 1996, pp. 4-5), PO fit is associated with a person’s
attitudes about the organization based on congruent goals and values (Chatman, 1989;
Van Vianen et al., 2007). Manifestations of this congruence include organizational
attraction 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 with
different aspects of the environment and with different outcome variables, PO fit has
many dimensions (Piasentin and Chapman, 2006), and acknowledged to be an
important factor in explaining the extent of career progression (Bretz et al., 1993). In
addition to labeling demand-abilities and needs-supplies fit within PO fit construct, PO
fit also includes supplementary fit and complementary fit, both of which are important
in PO fit studies. Supplementary fit occurs when individuals’ characteristics are similar
to organizational characteristics, and complementary fit occurs when individuals’
characteristics “fill a void or adds something missing in the organization” (Piasentin
and Chapman, 2006). Supplementary fit has to do with matching similar levels of
characteristics between employees (personality traits, values, goals) and organizations
(culture, values, norms), whereas complementary fit is concerned with bridging the gap
between the patterns of these assessed characteristics. However, needs-supplies and
abilities-demands fit have attracted more PO fit researchers as they apply to
congruence and vocational choice theories (Nikolaou, 2003).
From a needs-supplies standpoint, the degree of perceived or actual fit of career
actors to the values of the recruiting or employing organization is defined in terms of
their internal career desires, goals, and values. Thus, the assessment that career actors
make concerning the similarity between their personal characteristics and those of the
organization are likely to determine their decision to negotiate career “deals” in terms
of career stages and expectations including their preferences and perceptions of
organizational reward policies and practices. Cable and Judge (1994) investigated the
PO fit congruence of engineering and hotel administration students in the context of
pay preferences and job search decisions. They discovered that the attractiveness of
the pay policies of organizations was increased by higher levels of match between
individual personality characteristics and those of the pay and compensation system.
Similarly, Pappas and Flaherty (2006) examined whether the congruence of
salespeople’s characteristics such as career development and risk attitudes matched
their reactions to compensation practices (differences in rewards) when predicting
motivation. They found that characteristics of the individual salespeople influenced
the relationship between compensation and components of motivation (valence for
reward, expectancy perceptions, and instrumentality perceptions). Schneider (2001)
noted that individuals are attracted to and seek careers with organizations that they Career success
believe they will fit in and organizations in turn may select employees who have
similar characteristics to their own. In sum, these studies and a recent meta-analysis
conducted by Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) support the PO framework suggesting that
individuals assess the fit based on the match between their characteristics and the
situational characteristics of the environment in which they work.
Although the personal characteristics of career actors determine the PO fit from the 751
effect of personality and value congruence, career researchers noted the need to develop
career strategies and behaviors individuals and organizations use to promote career
success. For example, mentoring as a networking developmental strategy was found to be
positively related to career success (Allen et al., 2004; Van Emmerik, 2004). Individuals that
possess similar characteristics with their mentors and/or supervisors are likely to invest in
developmental relationships and get the social support needed to help them satisfy their
career preferences and advance to higher levels. Mentorship and interpersonal support
arise from similarity to the managerial hierarchy in an individual’s organization. The
similarity-attraction perspective (person-person fit or supplementary fit) argues that
individuals are attracted to and prefer those similar to themselves (Byrne, 1971). Kanter
(1977) believed that managers choose individuals socially similar to themselves to
progress and advance. Empirical evidence supports the similarity-attraction theory
regarding mentoring homogeneity and its effect on career success. Godshalk and Sosik
(2003) found that mentor and protégé who have and possess similar levels of learning goal
orientation reported the highest levels of psychological support and higher levels of career
development. The similarity-attraction theory is mostly depicted in terms of a contractual
relationship, where the psychological contract between employee and employer may
gradually evolve to reflect the socio-emotional and economic benefits of the matching
process. Granrose and Baccili (2006, p. 164) noted that “one of the key issues of the content
of a psychological contract is the extent to which an employer or a manger is willing to
help the employee develop his or her career as it extends over time.” In a relational
psychological contract managers would provide inducements including opportunities for
training and development, support and career rewards in exchange for the employee
providing loyalty and commitment (Rousseau, 2004). A relational contract typically
involves a long-term arrangements and a “mutually satisfying relationship between the
parties, with open-ended arrangements that include both socio-emotional and economic
terms” (O’Neill and Adya, 2007, p. 414). This contract promotes congruence between the
person and the organization (PO fit) since it establishes an ongoing relationship between
employer and employee (Ackah and Heaton, 2004). An individual would have career
success based on the employer providing mentoring relationships and a longer-term career
path and development that provide both economic and socio-emotional rewards.
Employees with relational contracts are more concerned about stable careers and less
concerned about particular jobs in the organization. For these employees, a high level of
PO fit is likely to increase their commitment and motivation toward task performance and
their engagement in good and lasting relationships (mentoring relationships,
organizational citizenship behaviors) with their employers, which in turn will result in
positive individual career and organizational outcomes. Although PO fit was
demonstrated to lead to job satisfaction (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), it may also lead to
career satisfaction and success. Individuals with high levels of PO fit invest in career
developmental and networking relationships with other individuals (peers, mentors,
JMP supervisors) in their work environment and engage in career decisions entailing more
22,8 work satisfaction, upward moves, more promotions and higher incomes. Researchers
noted 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 decisions
and it would facilitate organizational career advancement in relational contracts allows us
to advance the following proposition:
752 P3. PO fit is likely to be positively related to career success in employee relational
psychological contracts.

Person-culture fit and career success

The degree of congruence or compatibility between the individual’s values and the
organizations’ 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 is
based on the notion that individuals adapt and adjust better to their work
environments when the organization’s values match their personal values (O’Reilly
et al., 1991; Vanderberghe, 1999). O’Reilly et al. (1991) demonstrated that value
congruence between a person’s values and his/her organization’s culture predicted
outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover. Value
congruence is defined as the match between the organization’s existing cultural
characteristics (norms and values) and the individual’s values (Chatman, 1991; O’Reilly
et al., 1991). A large body of research showed how organizational culture exerts
considerable influence on employee performance and commitment and helps determine
how 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 and
employee-related variables such as work satisfaction and individual career progression
(Odom et al., 1990; Lok and Crawford, 1999; Claes and Ruiz-Quntanilla, 1998). One
measure 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 reflect
differences in beliefs and values about how closely employees should be assimilated
within 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 be
affected by IC dimension since they are embedded in personal perceptions and values on
career choices. In individualistic organizations employees value their independence and
individuality from their groups, whereas employees in collectivistic organizations see
themselves as interdependent members of their groups (Parkes et al., 2001; Hofstede,
1980). IC indicates the degree of interrelatedness among organizational members as well
as the way by which members construct their concept of themselves and exchange
relationships with their employers (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis et al., 1988; Markus and
Kitayama, 1991; Thomas and Au, 2002). IC has been reported to be one of the most
heavily researched cultural dimension of work-related values (Cox, 1994).
Employees fitting individualistic cultures are encouraged to pursue their own career
goals and expectations, with a preference for rewards based on individual achievement
(Triandis, 1995; Newstrom and Davis, 2002). They tend to compete for organizational
resources and demonstrate initiative to maintain a higher level of performance and
satisfaction across the firm as a whole. Conversely, employees fitting collectivistic
cultures are encouraged to pursue shared career goals and objectives (Noordin et al., 2002).
They tend to subordinate their personal goals to group goals, with a preference for Career success
rewards based on the accomplishments of the group or the organization (Erez, 2004,
McMillan-Capehart, 2005). This implies that career success in individualistic cultures is
grounded in personal interests and effectiveness based on the equity rule of reward
allocation, while in collectivistic cultures it is shaped more by social and group norms and
rules based on the equality rule of reward allocation.
Consequently, IC dimension portrays the differences in work attitudes and social 753
behaviors among members of one culture. Wagner and Moch (1986) found that these
two cultural characteristics were related to job type. Individualists tended to perform
tasks or jobs that are more independent and collectivists performed jobs that required
teamwork. They also found that collective rewards of work were less appealing for
individualists than for collectivists.
Individualism has to do with autonomy, personal growth and challenge. Employees
fitting individualistic cultures see themselves as being independent from members of
groups and are inner-directed in pursuing their own career goals regarding the
development of self-regulatory competences. On the other hand, employees fitting
collectivistic cultures see themselves as group-oriented in promoting cooperative goals
and in planning their subordinates’ career progression. Thus, career success in
individualistic cultures is based on individual initiative and achievement since the
focus is on the task (Hofstede, 1980) and on personal career goals and strategies that
are relevant to career opportunities (Ashford and Cummings, 1983). Individuals are
more likely to take responsibility for managing their own success and for promoting
their 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 greater
career success than those who saw their work less central. A recent meta-analysis by
Ng et al. (2005) has shown work centrality to be significantly related to both
components of career success.
In most individualistic cultures, employees are rewarded based on their individual
contribution to goal attainment (Erez, 2004), with the managers evaluating their
performance based on their individual contributions. In collectivistic cultures, an
individual’s career is perhaps defined much more in group terms and is carefully
planned by the firm (Okabe, 2002). An individual sees himself or herself as an aspect of
an 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 in
individualistic organizations, and collectivistic employees in collectivistic
organizations should demonstrate high levels of career satisfaction and success.
Thus, we propose that employees fitting individualistic cultures would facilitate a
more internally-oriented career (i.e. protean career) since they strongly rely on initiative
and 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 by
their organizations in return for their hard work, loyalty, commitment, and conformity
to group harmony and norms.
JMP P4. PC fit is likely to be positively related to career success, such that individualistic
22,8 employees report high levels of career success in individualistic than in
collectivistic organizations and that collectivistic employees report high levels of
career success in collectivistic than individualistic ones.

Organizational support and career success

754 Past research has suggested that organizational-level factors need to to be taken into
account when investigating the antecedents and correlates of career success. In this
study we analyze how perceived organizational support relate to individual career
success. Recent research has found organizational sponsorship variables such as
career 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 success

Eisenberger et al. (1986, p. 501) introduced the concept of perceived organizational
support (POS) to explain the development of employee commitment to an organization.
They suggested that “employees develop global beliefs concerning the extent to which
the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being”, and they
added that such global beliefs or perceived organizational support would lead to
increased rewards. That is, employees become attached to their organizations because
they perceive a beneficial exchange relationship between their contributions and the
rewards they receive for service. Eisenberger et al. (1986) used social exchange view
(Blau, 1964) to explain the reciprocal effect of commitment between the employee and
the organization, and they showed that POS is significantly associated with
organizational commitment. Given the positive effect of POS on employee commitment
and job satisfaction (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002), it seems logical to suggest that
perceived organizational support is related to career success as well. That is, POS may
enhance the individual’s personal competence, a factor also related to career success.
Perceptions of being valued and supported by an organization lead to desired employee
attitudes and behaviors including organizational commitment and trust, and
subsequently to valued rewards (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Wayne et al., 1997).
In their meta-analysis concerning the contribution of POS to performance-related
expectancies, Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) found POS to be positively associated
with opportunities for greater recognition and pay and promotion. Within the work
domain, POS may emanate either from the supervisor (perceived supervisor support) or
peers or other senior managers. Supportive supervisors affect individuals’ willingness to
engage in development activities (Noe, 1996) and are critical for subordinate performance
and success. In other words, subordinates’ careers may be enriched by supportive
relationships with supervisors or peers. In some organizations, for example, social
support provided by superviors may take the form of career guidance and information,
learning opportunities and challenging work assignments that promote career
advancement (Greenhaus et al., 1990). For example, Dreher and Ash (1990) found
mentorship to be related to both objective and subjective measures of career success.
Kirchmeyer (1998) found supervisor support significantly predicted men’s and women’s
managerial perceived career success and Greenhaus et al. (1990) found supervisor
support to be significantly related to men’s career satisfaction. Whitely et al. (1991)
examined mentoring and socioeconomic origins as antecedents of early career outcomes
for salaried managers and professional graduates working in various organizations. Career success
They found career mentoring to be related to career success. Other researchers found
that mentorship and supportive work relationships were related to career advancement
as well as perceived career success (Turban and Dougherty, 1994). Wallace (2001) found
that mentoring for female lawyers increased their career success and satisfaction. Allen
et al. (2004) reviewed empirical studies concerning the career benefits associated with
mentoring and concluded that career mentoring is more strongly related to subjective 755
indicators 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. He
found peer support (support and guidance provided by experienced peer) to be strongly
related to men’s subjective career success, whereas personal support (support and
enhancing information from friends or career-related issues) to be strongly related to
women’s subjective career success. Recent research relates social capital to career
mobility and outcomes (Lin and Huang, 2005). Seibert et al. (2001) found that social
capital was positively related to promotions and career satisfaction and Burt (1997)
reported that managers with more social capital, measured by network constraints, were
promoted faster and received larger bonuses than those with less social capital (networks
composed of few contacts). Hence, we propose that perceived social support at work in
the form of mentorship, netwoking and supportive work relationships would lead to
greater career opportunities and enhanced career satisfaction.
P5. There will be a positive relationship between perceived organizational
support and career success. Employees who perceive high levels of
organizational support will report greater career success than employees
who percive low levels of support.

Limitations and future research suggestions

This study was limited by the set of factors that were proposed to be linked to career
success. Although there are many predictors that have been examined in previous models
of career success, the study was just a literature review and explored the impact of
person-job fit, person-organization fit, and person-culture fit on career success. There has
been little research effort to identify what are the different types of PE fit that are most
related 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 fit
on career success. Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) found that employees’ work attitudes were
differentially predicted by different forms of PE fit. While this study utilized three types of
PE fit porposed to influence career decisions, these need to be empirically tested along
and/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 complete
understanding of the proposed relationships between levels of PE fit and components of
career success. For example, there may be individual differences that predict the extent to
which employees (and perhaps organizations) place value on fit with the supervisor, fit
with one’s workgroup, or fit with one’s team, and these differences might be important for
explaining variation in career success.
In this study I have attempted to address the question: how does PE fit relate to
components of career success? Because individuals may perceive and assess career
benefits and outcomes success according to their perceived and/or actual fit with
specific work environment within the context of employment relationships, it is useful
JMP to investigate the effects of contract types on the relationship between various PE fit
22,8 and career success. For example, Sekiguchi (2007) has recently introduced a
contingency perspective of PE fit in employee selection noting the role of PJ fit in
transactional contracts and that of PO fit in relational contracts and O’Neil and Adya
(2007) suggested that organizations should manage knowledge workers with different
psychological contracts across different stages of employment. Therefore, PE fit and
756 the congruence between the psychological contracts of employee and employer and
their joint effect on employee selection and success in careers remain to be examined in
future career management models.

Conclusions
Organizations are facing incredible pressures in multiple areas (economy, technology,
structure, society in general) to adjust to the new, evolving demands of their
constituencies and to become more efficient and competitive within their
environments. These new demands will likely necessitate changes in planning and
managing the careers of their employees. The fit of person and environment is a
dominant force in employee selection and in explaining individuals’ job satisfaction,
performance, and career success. PE fit and career success should be related since both
interact to affect employees’ career decisions and satisfaction and advancement in both
the workgoup (subculture) and organization context. This article has discussed
promoting 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 be
independent of organizational career paths or types (bounded vs boundaryless or portable
careers). To some extent, employees’ perceptions of their fit to particular career types
(traditional vs new organizational norms of career “deal”) and employment relationships
mirror their expectations regarding the kind of “careers” their employers would offer.
While the psychological contract between employer and employee has shifted to reflect a
decreasing promise of a career for life (Herriot and Pemberton, 1995), many employees
still expect employers to offer careers which reflect success in subjective terms, such as
recognition, influence and personal orientations (Sturges, 2004). Further, psychological
contract fulfillment has been shown to lead to various positive employee attitudes and
behaviors, including increased organizational support, commitment, and organizational
citizenship behavior (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2000).
Second, considering career success in the context of PE fit suggests that the
approaches to career progression are likely to occur across different dimensions of
individual or group and organizational values. Indeed, career success is assessed in
terms of vocational or career choice or based on value congruence beween an employee
and his/her manager or between an individual’s value congruence with the workgroup
or subculture of the organization. When an employee has a good fit with a particular
job or career his/her interest lies first in evaluating the work and tasks to be
accomplished then comparing his/her career goals and expectations to these
components of PJ. In light of this, specialized skills, personal competencies, and
professional knowledge that career aspirants supply for handling specific projects or
assigned workloads and tasks across specific or similar job or occupations are likely to
allow them to experience fluid career paths (e.g. protean career). When an employee has
a good fit with a particular organization he/she is likely to engage in development
seeking behaviors and create situations that support higher levels of job performance Career success
and achievements. An employee evaluates his/her fit based on the organization’s
specific 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 the
organization’s compensations practices (Barber and Bretz, 2000) such as promotional
opportunities and equitable rewards. Based on perceptions of fit, career aspirants
develop exchange relationships with both the organizations and immediate 757
supervisors and value relational or transactional contract fulfillment that offer them
steady employment, promotion, individual learning and growth, and valued rewards.
Under the relational psychological contract where the locus of responsibility is on the
organization, PO fit that entails long-term relationships associated with long-term
career decisions might lead career aspirants to favor a traditional form of career
success that offer them lateral or vertical moves to different jobs or areas in the
organization.
Moreover, the dimension of IC of person-culture fit is of great relevance to
explaining how career actors align their personal career values with a corporate culture
or subculture that exhibits their fit for particular career paths. For example, employees
fitting individualistic cultures give priority to personal work values and career goals
and achievements when compared to others. As such, the individual and the
boundaryless perspectives of careers will unfold more and more among career
aspirants whose personal competencies, social networks, and professional identities
permit 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 are
motivated by social-oriented achievement goals and not individual-oriented goals
(Niles, 1998; Triandis, 1995) when compared to others, and therefore the bounded
career (e.g. structural) is presumed to be the matched career type. Career success in
such cultures is largely determined by the organization’s career systems in which
group-based reward distribution systems are preferred by individuals who are
predisposed to work in cooperative work settings. Organizational commitment and
trust combined with competence and hard work predict job performance, which is the
direct antecedent to career opporunities and continued employment.
Third, PE fit perspective of career success calls for the rise of organizational support
systems that include elements such as mentoring or sponsorship, specialized training and
development programs in one area of the organization, clear career paths for success, and
work-family support programs that allow a balance between work and family
responsibilities. In today’s contemporary work environment, most employees are likely to
need social support in managing their careers. Information and career guidance and
support from others are needed not just on particular jobs, which may well disappear, but
on the direction of the economy, labor market, profession or sector, and therefore the kinds
of skills and key competencies which will be relevant in the future. As argued by Peiperl
and Baruch (1997), careers in the twenty-first century require a new set of support
structures and global links. Support structures incorporate different supporting elements
such as social identities and social networks that enable individuals to engage in different
career paths with different organizations including employment agencies, professional
bodies, and communities-based organizations. Consequently, employees who receive
more social support are likely to experience higher levels of perceived fit, which, in turn,
enhance their opportunities for career advancement.
JMP To conclude, career success has emerged as an important concern for both employees
22,8 and employers. This is due in large part to the demonstrated links between career
success and a number of individual and organizational variables. Past research has
tended to focus on sets of variables pertaining to the theory of rational choice and
behavior. Career success was assumed to be a function of human, motivational and
organization-specific variables that assessed the success an individual wishes to attain in
758 his or her career. The way we view career success, however, can be envisioned by
investigating the influences of different types of PE fit on career success. It is widely
acknowledged that individuals and organizations are nowadays experiencing different
models of careers as compared to previous decades, and both have to share responsibility
in managing and controlling the process and the challenging nature of career success.
Because careers are changing, and there is widespread agreement among researchers
and practitioners that career success is no longer solely determined by a set of
well-defined variables, the effects of different types of PE fit may provide insight into
how employees and employers can achieve a substantial fit in managing the process of
career advancement. As this article suggests, the influence of various forms of PE fit on
career success may prove to be useful avenue for future careers research and may
provide 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 of
European 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 with
mentoring 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-intensive
companies”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1101-23.
Alvesson, M. (2001), “Knowledge work: ambiguity, image and identity”, Human Relations, Vol. 54
No. 7, pp. 863-86.
Anackwe, U.P., Hall, J.C. and Schor, S. (2000), “Knowledge-related skills and effective career
management”, 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 boundaryless
career 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 subjective
career 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 of
creating information”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 32, pp. 370-98.
Barber, A.E. and Bretz, R.D. (2000), “Compensation, attraction, and retention”, in Rynes, S.L. and Career success
Gerhart, 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 Reference
to Education, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
Becker, G.S. (1975), Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 759
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: implication
for 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 fit
perceptions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 885-93.
Cannings, K. (1988), “The earnings of female and male middle managers”, Journal of Human
Resources, Vol. 23, pp. 34-56.
Carless, S. (2005), “Person-job fit versus person-organization fit as predictors of organizational
attraction and job acceptance intentions: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 411-29.
Chatman, J. (1989), “Improving interactional organizational research: a model of
person-organization fit”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 333-49.
Chatman, J.A. (1991), “Matching people and organizations: selectionand socializing in public
accounting firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 459-84.
Chenevert, D. and Tremblay, M. (2002), “Managing career success in canadian organizations: is
gender a determinant?”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 13
No. 6, pp. 920-41.
Claes, R. and Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A. (1998), “Influences of early career experiences, occupational
group, 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-organization
fit: the impact of socialization tactics and actual fit”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational 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 the
employment relationship: a large scale survey”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37
No. 7, pp. 903-30.
JMP Crant, J.M. (1995), “The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real
estate agents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 532-7.
22,8
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.
760 Dawis, R.V. and Lofquist, L.H. (1984), A Psychology Theory of Work Adjustment, University of
Minnesota 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-based
perspective”, 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 in
managerial, 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 and
individualistic 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 the
boundaryless career”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, pp. 689-708.
Edwards, J.R. (1991), “Person-job fit: a conceptual integration, literature review, and
methodological critique”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review
of 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 and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75,
pp. 51-9.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational
support”, 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 proactive
personality: 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 of
psychological contracts among workers in the high technology and financial services
industries”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 1152-65.
Gattiker, U. and Larwood, L. (1988), “Predictors for managers’ career mobility, success, and
satisfaction”, 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 goal
orientation 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 their
relationships in a municipal bureaucracy”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, Vol. 34, pp. 244-65.
Granrose, C.S. and Baccili, P.A. (2006), “Do psychological contracts include boundaryless or
protean careers?”, Career Development International, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 163-82.
Greenhaus, J., Parasuraman, S. and Wormley, W. (1990), “Effects of race on organizational Career success
experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes”, Academy of Management
Journal, 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 of
Management Review, Vol. 21, pp. 718-56. 761
Gunz, H.P., Jalland, R. and Evans, M.G. (1998), “New strategy, wrong managers? What you need
to 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 midlife
and beyond”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 47, pp. 269-89.
Hall, D. and Moss, J.E. (1998), “The new protean career contract: helping organizations and
employees 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 congruence
with 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 between
person-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 Work
Environments, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
Hui, C., Lee, C. and Rousseau, D.M. (2004), “Psychological contract and organizational citizenship
behavior in China: investigating generalizability and instrumentality”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 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 of
the 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 of
male/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 the
simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, pp. 985-93.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), “Consequences of individuals’ fit
at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and
person-supervisor fit”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 281-342.
Lauver, K.J. and Kristof-Brown, A. (2001), “Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of
person-job and person-organization fit”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 59, pp. 454-70.
JMP Lin, S. and Huang, Y. (2005), “The role of social capital in the relationship between human capital
and career mobility”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 507-21.
22,8
Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (1999), “The relationship between commitment and organizational
culture, subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change and
development”, 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 work
762 arrangements 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 to
protean ones?”, Career Development International, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 109-29.
McMillan-Capehart, M. (2005), “A configurational framework for diversity: socialization and
culture”, 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 of
Occupational 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 knowledge
bases 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 success
among men and women”, Internationsl Journal of Manpower, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 457-74.
Nabi, G. (2003), “Situational characteristics and subjective career success”, International Journal
of 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-job
performance 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 subjective
career 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-cultural
Psychology, 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 and
individualist cultures: a comparative study”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 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.
Okabe, Y. (2002), “Culture or employment systems? Accounting for the attitudinal differences Career success
between British and Japanese managers”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 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 of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 411-36.
O’Reilly, C.A. (1989), “Corporations, culture, and commitment: motivation and social control in 763
organizations”, 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 profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 487-516.
Ostroff, C., Shin, Y. and Kinicki, A.J. (2005), “Multiple perspectives of congruence: relationships
between 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 in
compensation research”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 19-35.
Parker, P. (2002), “Working with the intelligent career model”, Journal of Employment
Counseling, 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 school
graduates’ 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 between
conceptualization 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 the
literature”, 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 psychological
contract: a longitudinal study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 137-52.
Rosenbaum, J.E. (1989), “Organizational career systems and employee misperceptions”, in
Arthur, M.B., Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S. (Eds), Handbook of Career Theory, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY, pp. 329-53.
Rousseau, D.M. (1995), Pschological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and
Unwritten Agreements, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Rousseau, D.M. (2004), “Psychological contracts in the workplace: understanding the ties that
motivate”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 120-7.
Rousseau, D. and Parks, J. (1992), “The contracts of individuals and organizations”, in
Cummings, 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.
JMP 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.
22,8
Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L. and Crant, J. (2001), “What do proactive people do? A longitudinal
model of linking proactive personality and career success”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54
No. 4, pp. 845-74.
Sekiguchi, T. (2007), “A contingency perspective of the importance of PJ fit and PO fit in
764 employee 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 the
relationship between organizational culture and perceptions of empowerment”, Journal of
Quality Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 27-52.
Stewart, L. and Gudykunst, W. (1982), “Differential factors influencing the hierarchical level and
number of promotions of males and females within an organization”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 586-97.
Sturges, J. (2004), “The individualization of the career and its implications for leadership and
management development”, in Storey, J. (Ed.), Leadership in Organizations: Current Issues
and Key Trends, Routledge, London, pp. 249-68.
Sullivan, S.E. (1999), “The changing nature of careers: a review and research agenda”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 457-84.
Tempest, S., McKinlay, A. and Starkey, K. (2004), “Careering alone: careers and social capital in the
financial services and television industries”, Human Relations, Vol. 57 No. 12, pp. 1523-45.
Terborg, J.R. (1981), “International psychology and research on human behavior in
organizations”, 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 in
management?”, 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 of
influences on women’s and men’s managerial advancement”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 899-931.
Thomas, D.C. and Au, K. (2002), “The effects of cultural differences on behavioral responses to
low 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 fit
model”, 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 performance
matter? 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 and
collectivism: cross-cultural perspectives on self-in-group relationships”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 328-38.
Turban, D. and Dougherty, T. (1994), “Role of protégé personality in receipt of mentoring and
career success”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 688-702.
Vanderberghe, C. (1999), “Organizational cultue, person-culture fit, and turnover: a replication in
the 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 and
intrinsic career success”, Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 578-94.
Van Vianen, A.E.M., Pater, I.E. and Van Dijk, F.V. (2007), “Work value fit and turnover intention: Career success
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 between
person-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”, Group
and Organization Studies, Vol. 11, pp. 280-304. 765
Wallace, J.E. (2001), “The benefits of mentoring for female lawyers”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 58, pp. 366-91.
Wanous, J.P. (1992), Organizational Entry: Recruitment, Selection, Orientation and Socialization
of Newcomers, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: a social exchange perspective”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 82-111.
Weiss, H.M. and Adler, S. (1984), “Personality and organizational behavior”, in Staw, B.M. and
Cummings, 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 and
socioeconomic origin to managers’ and professionals’ early career progress”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 331-51.
Young, A.M. and Hurlic, D. (2007), “Gender enactment at work: the importance of gender and
gender-related behavior to person-organizational fit and career decisions”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 168-87.
Zabusky, S.E. and Barley, S.R. (1996), “Redefining success”, in Osterman, P. (Ed.), Broken
Ladders: 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 in
Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

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

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints