Effects of Protean Career Orientation on Person-Organization Fit over Time Nicky Dries Rein De Cooman IFSAM – September, 2014

Protean career orientation “The protean career […] focuses on achieving subjective career success through self-directed vocational behavior […] Individuals who hold protean career attitudes are intent upon using their own values (versus organizational values for example) to guide their career (i.e., values-driven) and take an independent role in managing their vocational behavior (i.e., self-directed)” (Briscoe, Hall, & DeMuth, 2006, p. 31)

Person-organization (P-O) fit Can a protean orientation help young people find the perfect job? (‘perfect’ defined as perfect fit). “Person-organization fit is the compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when: (a) at least one entity provides what the other needs, or (b) they share similar fundamental characteristics, or (c) both.” (Kristof, 1996). (Kristof, 1996, p. 4) Longitudinal research framework: ASA [attraction-selection-attrition] model (Schneider, 1987)

Assumed relationships The literature relates protean career attitude to career planning (e.g., Saks & Ashforth, 2002), proactive personality and proactive behavior (e.g., Brown et al., 2006), and job search (Waters, 2008); These variables are believed to be antecedents of P-O fit (Saks & Ashforth, 2002, Yu, 2013); We posit that having a protean career attitude helps people achieve P-O fit because protean people might be more motivated to fit and thus exhibit better ‘fit management tactics’ (Yu, 2013); This would help us answer the question: “If everyone strives for fit, why doesn’t everyone achieve it?”

Gaps tackled (1) Sense and nonsense of the protean career ? Basic assumption in the conceptual literature is that it results only in positive career behavior and outcomes; (2) Empirical literature on protean career has focused mostly on the self-directed aspect (often equated to proactivity) and hardly ever on the values-driven aspect; (3) P-O fit is usually studied as an antecedent (e.g. to satisfaction, commitment, turnover), not an outcome of interest in its own right.

Study design Longitudinal study in a sample of ‘new employees’ Why this sample? Starting point = identical for everyone (i.e., leaving higher education). Divergence between respondents, however, at later time points. Controlling for: GPA [grade point average] & graduation major employment rates 3 points in time (inspired by A-S-A theory): T1: graduation time T2: 6 months after graduation T3: 3 years after graduation NT1= 1,125; NT2= 489; NT3= 372 (r.r. = 43-33 %)

Findings: hypotheses T1-T2 “Graduates who are protean will reach higher (perceived and actual) PO fit.” T1 T2 T3 Protean career orientation Self-directed Values driven P-O fit Actual (values) fit Perceived fit .161* P-O fit Actual (values) fit Perceived fit -.066* T1-T2 Job search Duration Intensity Jobs rejected -.137* T2-T3 Staying or leaving

Alternative hypotheses T3 (1) Effects need more time to manifest (> 6 mo.) (2) Flawed basic assumptions (3) Discrepancy concept protean vs. measure

1. Effects need more time to manifest Maybe having a protean career attitude does lead to better P-O fit, but not in the first few months of employment (T2). Maybe our hypotheses will be confirmed at T3, and this is ‘simply’ a case of lagged effects. >> Not confirmed at T3. Again, we find that self-directedness is a negative predictor of P-O fit at T3, as is job search intensity.

2. Flawed basic assumptions We indirectly assumed that people who are protean (esp. values-driven) attach more importance to P-O fit. Maybe this is incorrect (cf. loners, mavericks) + Maybe protean career attitude ‘objectively’ leads to a better job quality, but not ‘subjectively’ (i.e., fit, satisfaction, commitment)? (cf. maximizing, never happy?) >> Only partially confirmed at T3. Self-directed = more importance attached to fit; no sig. relationship for values-driven Self-directed = positive effect on job satisfaction, job quality, and perceived labor market opportunities at T3; no effects for values-driven

3. Discrepancy concept vs. measure >> Why no effects for values-driven dimension? Maybe there is something wrong with our measure of protean career attitude (i.e., face validity, construct validity), especially for values-driven dimension. Concept = like authenticity Item phrasing (measure) = like need for autonomy >> T3 analyses reveal no clear alternative explanations. Both authenticity & need for autonomy correlate sig. with protean ‘values-driven’ scale (around .350) Nor authenticity, nor need for autonomy are significant predictors of P-O fit at T2 or T3

To do Currently performing non-linear (e.g. quadratic) analyses (i.e., can graduates be “too” protean?) Control for labor market factors (i.e., odds of finding a job within 1 year per major, specific to graduation year) >> waiting on VDAB data; but we know that perceived labor market opportunities at T3 correlate around .70 with all T2-T3 career outcomes! Run polynomials instead of calculated (actual) fit? (cf. discussion on using difference scores!) Socialization vs. voluntary attrition hypotheses (distinguish stayers vs. leavers between time points) Survival analysis? Standardize exact graduation month, start of first job, quit dates & quit reasons.

Thank you! Questions? Contact us: nicky.dries@kuleuven.be