Willingness to accept mobility opportunities: Destination makes a difference

PERSONNFX PSYCHOLOGY1988.41

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTORSINFLUENCING EMPLOYEES' WILLINGNESS TOACCEPT MOBILITY OPPORTUNITIES

RAYMOND A. NOFIndustrial Relations Center

University of Minnesota

BRIAN D. STEFFYFranklin and Marshal! College

ALISON F. BARBERIndustrial Relations Research Institute

University of Wisconsin-Madison

This study investigated the influence of 1,076 state employees' careerstage, family characteristics, job tenure and specialization, and percep-tions of job favorability, movement, and career development opportunitieson willingness to accept upward, lateral, and downward mobility oppor-tunities. Results indicated that employees in early career stages with littlecommunity tenure who perceived a lack of congruence between their cur-rent jobs and their "ideal" jobs and expressed little desire to remain intheir current jobs were more willing to accept mobility opportunities. Fewdifferences were noted in regression models across different mobility op-portunities. Implications for future research regarding employee mobilityare discussed.

Typically, the number and rate of upward moves an individual hasexperienced within an organization have defined career success. Becauseof a sluggish U.S. economy and a large cohort of employees in midcareer,however, fewer advancement opportunities are currently available. As aresult of a large midcareer cohort and corporate restructuring, organizationsare utilizing lateral transfers and downward movement as altematives tolayoffs, to meet employee development needs, and to adapt to the demandscreated by voluntary and involuntary tumover (Ahlburg & Kimmel, 1986;Hall & Isabella, 1985).

According to Vardi (1980), organizational career mobility is the ac-tual intraorganizational job mobility experienced by employees and the

We would like to thank Nancy Branton for providing us with the data for this study.John Fossum, Ann Wiggins Noe, and Karen Clark provided helpful comments and valuableassistance in preparing this article.

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Raymond A. Noe, Indus-trial Relations Center, University of Minnesota, 515 Management and Economics building,271 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455.

COPYRIGHT (CJ 1988 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. INC.

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors related to these experiences. The im-portance of employee perceptions for understanding career mobility hasbeen acknowledged by numerous authors (eg., Louis, 1980; Nicholson,1* 84). Intraorganizational career mobility includes all movement opportu-nities within an organization, including promotions, lateral transfers, anddownward movement. Research indicates that actual and perceived mo-bility opportunities are likely antecedents of turnover, job satisfaction, andjob performance (e.g., Camithers & Pinder, 1983; Feldman & Brett, 1983;March & Simon, 1958; Pinder, 1977; Pinder & Schroeder, 1987).

Although recent mobility models emphasize the need for research study-ing the antecedents of career mobility behavior in organizations (see An-derson, Milkovich, & Tsui, 1981; Rhodes & Doering, 1983; Vardi, 1980),few empirical studies have investigated the factors that influence employ-ees' willingness to participate in career movement opportunities such aslateral transfers, promotions, or assignments to lower-level positions. Cur-rent research in employee mobility has focused on the impact of movementon work attitudes and job performance, use of strategies to cope with thestress of movement, and identification of criteria for intraorganizational mo-bility, or it has evaluated various types of mobility patterns (Beehr, Taber,& Walsh, 1980; Forbes, 1987; Latack, 1984; Pinder & Schroeder, 1987;Rosenbaum, 1979).

Three recent studies have attempted to identify the factors that in-fluence employees' willingness to accept career movement opportunities.Veiga (1983) studied the impacts of career stage, barriers to moving, careerpath factors, and motives for moving, on managers' propensity to accepta position with another organization. Propensity to move was related tomanagers' perceptions of marketability, value of company benefits, impor-tance of job security, time in first position, degree of visibility to organi-zational decision makers, career impatience, and satisfaction with recog-nition, salary, and advancement opportunities in the organization. Gouldand Penley (1985) hypothesized that two classes of variables would affectwillingness to relocate: (1) time-based variables, such as age, job tenure,and length of time in the community, and (2) situational variables, such asspouse's employment status, salary, and degree of job involvement. Com-munity tenure and spouse's employment status had the largest influence onwillingness to relocate for a sample of public-sector employees. However,only 18% of the vanance in willingness to relocate was explained by thetime-based and situational variables. Landau and Hammer (1986) foundthat beliefs regarding movement opportunities within organizations wereaffected by job tenure, perceived match between organizational criteria formobility and personal characteristics, and the availability of performancefeedback from peers and supervisors. The greatest perceived opportunitiesfor intraorganizational mobility were reported by younger employees with

RAYMOND A. NOE ET AL. 561

short job tenure who perceived a match between the organization's criteriafor mobility and their personal characteristics (e.g., education, skills, andperformance) and received job performance feedback from their supei*vi-sor. The extent to which the job was "enriched" (e.g., included autonomy,skill variety, opportunity to deal with others) had no impact on employees'perceptions regarding the ease of mobility.

Studies by Gould and Penley (1985), Landau and Hammer (1986),and Veiga (1983) provide initial empirical evidence regarding the influ-ence of employee demographics, community and organizational tenure, andspouse's employment status, on willingness to relocate, perceived ease ofmovement, and propensity to move to another organization. However, littleis known about employee willingness to accept specific movement optionssuch as promotions, lateral transfers, or downward assignments. Also, em-ployees' perceptions regarding opportunities for mobility, availability ofdevelopmental activities related to membership in the current job, job sat-isfaction, and the discrepancy between the current and the "ideal" job mayhave a significant impact on willingness to accept movement opportunities.Identification of employee characteristics that may influence willingnessto accept various movement options is important from an organizationalperspective in order to identify employees who may respond favorably tomovement opportunities and to develop appropriate reward systems to mo-tivate employees to accept mobility opportunities. Therefore, the purposeof this paper is to investigate the influence of employee and family char-acteristics, job favorability, job tenure and specialization, and perceptionsof movement and career development opportunities on employees' will-ingness to accept four specific intraorganizational mobility options; lateraltransfer with relocation, lateral transfer without relocation, promotion withrelocation, and downward assignment.

Factors Infiuencing Willingness to Engage in Career Movement Options

On the basis of a review of the literature in organizational behavior, psy-chology, and sociology, the antecedents of employee willingness to partic-ipate in intraorganizational mobility options were identified. Career stage,evaluation of the favorability of the job, family characteristics, job tenureand specialization, movement opportunities, and career-development oppor-tunities were believed to have a significant impact on employee willingnessto accept a lateral transfer, supervisory position, or downward transfer.

Career stage. The individual's career stage has been shown to influencejob attitudes, career exploration behavior, and participation in developmentactivities (e.g., Noe, 1987; Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977; Slocum & Cron,1985). Numerous career stage models have been proposed; these modelsidentify major life periods by utilizing specific age ranges (e.g., Hall &

362 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Nougaim, 1968; Super, 1957), age in managerial career (Rush, Peacock, &Milkovich, 1980). and number of years in profession (Veiga, 1983). Recentwork by Slocum and Cron (1985) suggests that a three-stage career patternis feasible.

In the initial career stage, the trial stage (age 25-30), the central con-cem is uncovering information about jobs and occupations. The individualis preoccupied with leaming how to work according to the organization'sand manager's nonns and expectations. Mobility options within the or-ganization may be limited because the organization has not had sufficienttime to evaluate the individual's potential and socialization is not yet com-pleted. However, employees in this stage may be more willing to pursuemovement opportunities because they are interested in exploring differenttypes of jobs and evaluating personal competence in different skill areas(Slocum & Cron, 19K5).

Individuals in the advancement stage (age 31-44) are concemed withbecoming established in their jobs and demonstrating competence in orderto advance within the organization. Because of advancement desires, moti-vation to leam is high and additional challenge and responsibility is desiredat work. In the advancement stage, promotions and lateral movement arelikely perceived as indicators of success.

The challenge of the maintenance stage (age 45-65) is to remain pro-ductive and avoid technical obsolescence. Work involvement may decreasein comparison with the advancement stage because family and other lifeactivities receive greater attention (Schein, 1978). Family and communityinvolvement may inhibit the willingness of individuals in this career stageto accept movement opportunities, especially if relocation is necessary.

Research regarding the influence of age and career stage on employeemobility suggests that as individuals move into the later career stagesthey have lowered expectations for mobility opportunities and are lesspromotion-oriented, which results in decreased willingness to accept move-ment opportunities within the organization (Hill & Miller, 1981; Moore,Miller, & Fossum, 1974; Vardu 1980). As a result we hypothesize:

Hypothesis I: Employees in the trial and advancement career stages will bemore wiliing to accept lateral, upward, or downward movement options thanwill employees in the maintenance career stage.

Job favorabilityK Job favorability includes job satisfaction and the ex-tent to which the employee perceives the current work environment asproviding desired opportunities for skill development, feelings of accom-plishment, autonomy, and challenge. Job dissatisfaction has been shownto be related to withdrawal behaviors such as absenteeism and reducedorganizational commitment (e.g., Muchinsky, 1977). The greater an em-ployee's dissatisfaction with a current job, the more willing that employee

RAYMOND A. NOE ET AL. 563

may be to move to another position. For example, Veiga (1983) found thatpropensity to move was significantly related to satisfaction with the workitself. Dissatisfied managers reported a greater propensity to move thandid satisfied managers. As a result we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2: Tbe less the employee's job satisfaction, the more willing theemployee will be to accept upward or lateral career movement within theorganization.

Dawis, Lofquist, and Weiss's (1968) theory of work adjustment sug-gests that employee mobility aspirations may be discrepancy-based. Thatis, the perceived correspondence between employee needs and the currentwork environment may affect willingness to accept movement opportunitieswithin the organization. In their career change model, Rhodes and Doering(1983) suggest that lack of correspondence between the characteristics ofthe "ideal" job and the current job results in increased motivation for theemployee to leave the organization or move to other positions within theorganization that are more congruent with the "ideal" job.

Hypothesis 3: The greater the discrepancy between the current job and the"ideal" job, the greater the employee's willingness to accept upward, down-ward, or lateral movement options.

Family characteristics. Willingness to accept movement opportunitiesthat involve relocation is likely influenced by family characteristics such asthe number of years the employee has resided in the community. The longeran employee resides in a particular community, the greater the identificationwith the community and the more well-developed networks of interpersonalrelationships. As a result, employees should be less willing to acceptmovement opportunities the greater their community tenure. Studies bySwanson, Luloff, and Warland (1979) and Gould and Penley (1985) foundthat length of tenure in the community was negatively related to employeewillingness to relocate.

Hypothesis 4: The longer the employee's community tenure, the less willingthe employee will be to accept mobility options involving relocation.

Spouse's work status is an additional family characteristic that likelyaffects willingness to accept mobility options that involve relocation. May-nard and Zawaski (1979) suggest that families with two income eamers areless willing to accept organizational movement opportunities that involverelocation because of the possibility of job loss for the spouse. Similarly,Markham, Macken, Bonjean, and Corder (1983) found a negative rela-tionship between spouse's employment status and willingness to relocate.

364 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Also, research indicates that it is more difficult for spouses to find suit-able employment after job transfer (Duncan & Perucci, 1976). However,Gould and Penley (1985) found that willingness to relocate was facilitatedby having an employed spouse. They suggest that this may be becausedual-wage-eamer families have less organizational and community com-mitment because of psychological preparation for relocation and awarenessof the need to relocate in order to advance the career potential of eitherspouse. An additional explanation is that the spouses in this study weremore mobile because they held lower-level jobs with good employmentopportunities.

Hypothesis 5: Employees in a dual-wage-eamer family will be less willingto accept mobility opportunities involving relocation.

Job tenure and specialization. The skill demands of the job as well asthe extent to which employees have invested effort in developing unique,specialized skills may influence willingness to accept mobility opportu-nities. Vardi and Hammer (1977) found that both rate and direction ofmtraorganizationa! mobility, as well as employees' perceptions of mobilityrequirements, varied by work technology. Employees in assembly-type jobsrequiring interdependent tasks (i.e., a long-linked technology), experiencedgreater mobility than employees involved in job activities linking interde-pendent clients or customers (mediating technology) or non-routine tasksrequiring specialized skills and professional knowledge (intensive technol-ogy). Also, employees in jobs requiring long-linked technology movedlaterally rather than upward in the organization, as was the case for em-ployees in work involving intensive technology. The results of this studysuggest that as the skill demands of the job become more specialized, lat-eral job movements become less probable. In addition, employees whohave devoted considerable time and effort to acquiring specialized skillsmay be less willing to move laterally because of human capital concems.Human capital theory views the acquisition of specific skills and trainingas an investment and suggests that individuals will seek to maximize re-tum on their investment (Rees, 1973). As a result, employees who havedeveloped specialized skills will want to remain in jobs where those skillsare valued.

Hypcthcsis 6: Employees who consider themselves generalists (having arange of skills applicable to several different jobs) will be more willingto engage in lateral career movement than will employees who considerthemselves specialists (having specific skills relevant to a limited number ofjobs).

RAYMOND A. NOE ET AL. 565

Length of job tenure may be an indicator of being plateaued in anorganization. That is, the longer an employee has remained in one posi-tion, the less likely future upward or lateral movement opportunities willoccur (Veiga, 1981). As a result of decreased advancement opportunities,plateaued employees may become passive and fail to respond to movementopportunities. Therefore, it is likely that when given the opportunity tomove, the longer an employee has been in his/her current job, the lesswilling that employee will be to accept movement opportunities within theorganization.

Hypothesis 7: The greater the employee's job tenure, the less willing he/shewill be to accept any upward, lateral, or downward movement opportunity.

Employees' desire to stay in their current jobs may result in reducedwillingness to engage in movement opportunities. However, there may bean interaction between an employee's desire to stay in a job and the degreeof discrepancy between the current and "ideal" job. For employees whoare not motivated to stay in their current jobs, the difference between theactual and "ideal" job may be inconsequential. These employees will likelybe willing to accept movement options regardless of the "fit" between theircurrent jobs and their "ideal" jobs. Employees who desire to stay in theircurrent jobs may be more willing to accept movement opportunities thegreater the perceived discrepancy between characteristics of the "ideal"and actual jobs.

Hypothesis 8: Willingness to aecept mobility options will be greatest foremployees who do not desire to remain in their current jobs, regardless ofthe discrepancy between the the "ideal" and the actual job. For employeeswho report a strong desire to remain in their current jobs and the greater thediscrepancy between the actual and "ideal" jobs, the greater their willingnessto accept movement opportunities.

Movement opportunities. Employees' perceptions of availability ofmovement opportunities and personal evaluation of promotion readinesswill likely affect willingness to accept movement options. Employees whoare knowledgeable regarding opportunities for lateral or upward movementin the organization may be more willing to accept movement opportuni-ties. Awareness of movement opportunities may be considered evidencethat the employee has engaged in career exploration activities. Exploratorybehavior refers to mental or physical activities undertaken for the purposeof eliciting information about oneself or the environment, or forming deci-sions regarding occupational adjustment, progression, or choice (Jordaan,1963). Stumpf, Colarelli, and Hartman (1983) identified the dimensionsunderlying career exploration behavior including intended systematic and

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

environmental exploration, which emphasize information seeking regard-ing mobility opportunities within and outside the organization. Severalstudies suggest that awareness of movement opportunities influences mo-bility. Sugalski and Greenhaus (1986) found that managers who had amobility-oriented career goal engaged in more extensive career exploration.Also, the extent to which employees engage in career planning, a type ofexploratory behavior, has been shown to be related to the likelihood ofparticipation in self-development activities, salary level, and advancement(Gould. 1979, Super & Hall, 1978).

Hypothesis 9: The greater employees' perception of the availability of move-ment opportunities within the organization, the greater their willingness toparticipate in movement opportunities.

Those employees who perceive they are ready for a promotion willlikely be more willing to accept a promotion than employees who feelthey are not prepared for a promotion. Employee readiness for promotionmay be negatively related to willingness to accept lateral or downwardmovement opportunities.

Hypoihesis K^. Employees who believe that they are ready for promotionwill be more willing to accept movement involving promotion. Conversely,ihcsc employees will be less willing to accept downward or lateral movementopportunities.

Development opportunities. The extent to which the employee's jobprovides opportunities to develop knowledge and skills through task com-pletion or participation in formal training programs may be related to will-ingness to accept movement options. Landau and Hammer (1986) sug-gested that if employees' jobs lacked autonomy, opportunities to deal withothers, and opportunities to leam. The employees would have less visibilityto promotion decision makers. The resulting employee dissatisfaction wassuggested to result in an increased willingness to move to other positionsand decreased perceptions of ease of movement. They failed to find sig-nificant support for the effects of job characteristics on perceptions of easeof movement within the organization. Although the absence of desirablejob characteristics did not influence perceptions of ease of movement, will-ingness to engage in mobility behavior may be affected. Employees maybe more willing to accept lateral, horizontal, or even downward movementwithin the organization if personal development, either through exposure to"enriched" jobs or opportunities to attend knowledge or skill-based trainingprograms, is not inherent in their current jobs.

RAYMOND A. NOE ET AL. 567

Hypothesis II: Employees with fewer development opportunities in theircurrent jobs will be more willing to accept upward, downward, or lateralcareer options.

Method

Participants

The study was conducted in April 1986 in a state agency located in themidwestem United States. In 1984, a study conducted in this state agencyrecommended the development of additional career paths requiring bothoffice and field experience. Additionally, job movement had become anincreasingly important issue for employees in this state agency in recentyears because of greater job specialization, decentralization of the stateagency structure, unionization, and pressure from employees for more pro-motional opportunities and fewer mobility restrictions. As a result, a surveywas developed by human resource personnel in the organization to collectinformation from employees conceming job and career satisfaction, will-ingness to accept mobility options, barriers to mobility, and the extent ofparticipation in development activities. This project data served as the basisfor this study.

Questionnaires were mailed to every employee in the technician jobclassification or above {N = 1,296). After four weeks, duplicate ques-tionnaires with a more insistent plea for cooperation were sent to all em-ployees who had failed to retum the first questionnaires. A total of 1,076questionnaires were retumed for a response rate of 83%.

The large majority of participants were males {N = 989). Most hadfour-year college degrees or advanced degrees (69%, N = 725). Fifty-twopercent were between 31 and 40 years old. Type of occupations representedincluded professional (43%, A'' = 431), technical (22%, TV = 226), super-visory (21%, N = 213), law enforcement (9.6%, N - 97), and managerial(4.2%, N = 42).

Procedure

The questionnaire and accompanying cover letter were mailed to em-ployees. The cover letter explained that the purpose of the study was toobtain information about employees' satisfaction with their current jobs andcareer growth, and to identify factors they considered important for careeradvancement. The questionnaire was retumed via interoffice mail.

568 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Measures

Career stage. Career stage was determined by the age time frameestablished by Slocum and Cron (1985). Career stage was coded as " 1 " ifparticipants were 30 years old or less (trial stage, N = 152), "2" if theywere between 31 and 45 years old (stabilization stage, N = 638), and '*3"if they were 46 years or older (maintenance stage, N = 199). Twentyindividuals failed to provide their age.

Job favorability. Job satisfaction was assessed by one item: ''Overall,would you say your current job is . . . " A 7-point Likert type scale wasused with 1 = "Very dissatisfying" to 7 = ''Very satisfying".

In order to determine the perceived match between the current job andthe ideal job. two identical 19-item scales were developed. The scaleincluded items assessing autonomy, challenge, responsibility, and skill va-riety inherent in the job, as well as the extent to which the job providedthe exposure and experience necessary for intraorganizational job move-ment. TTie first scale asked participants to evaluate how satisfied they werewith various facets of their current job (1 = "Not at all satisfying" to 7 ="Very satisfying"). The internal consistency reliability of the satisfactionscale was .93. The second 19-item scale asked participants to indicate howimponant each of the facets was to making their current job their ideal job(1 = "Not very important" to 7 = "Very important"). The internal consis-tency reliability of the importance scale was .91. A discrepancy index wasformed by first computing the average scale scores within each 19-itemscale to create two scales, one indicating satisfaction with facets of thecurrent job {M = 4.93, SD = .98), the other indicating the importanceof the job facets in the "ideal" job (M = 5.81, SD = .72). Next, scoreson the current job facet satisfaction scale were subtracted from "ideal" jobfacet importance to create the discrepancy index. The internal consistencyreliability of this discrepancy index was .63.

Family characteristics. Participants were asked to indicate marital statusand spouse's employment status. Dummy coding was used to indicate wageearning status of the family (1 = "Married and spouse works either full-orpart-time," 0 = "No spouse or spouse does not work"). Community tenurewas determined by response to the question "How many consecutive yearshave you lived in the community in which you currently live?"

Job tenure and specialization. Participants were asked to indicatewhether or not their job required them to be more of a specialist or ageneralist ("Please consider the variety of job duties and the breadth andthe knowledge, skills, and abilities that your current job demands of you.Would you say that your job requires you to be more of a specialist orgeneralist?"). A specialist was defined as a person with detailed skills ina specific branch of study, research, or work. Dummy coding was used to

RAYMOND A. NOE ET AL. 569

differentiate the two groups (1 = "Specialists," 0 = "Generalists"). Singleitems were included in the questionnaire to determine how long participantswanted to remain in their current jobs and how long they had been in theircurrent jobs.

Movement opportunities. A single item using a 7-point response scalewas used to assess participants' perceptions of promotion qualifications("How qualified are you for promotion at this time?", 1 = "Not at all qual-ified" to 7 = "Very qualified"). A single item using a 7-point responsescale was used to assess participants' awareness of career opportunities("How much do you know about career opportunities?" 1 = "Almost noth-ing" to 7 = "A whole lot"). A 5-item scale was developed to measureparticipants' perceptions of upward and lateral movement opportunities.The items assessed advancement opportunities for supervisory and non-supervisory positions and opportunity for movement between sections, di-vision, and agencies (e.g., "How much opportunity do you feel this agencyoffers to you to obtain a supervisory position?"). The intemal consistencyreliability of this scale was .81.

Development opportunities, A 4-item scale was developed to assessparticipants' perceptions of current opportunities for career development.The items assessed participants' perceptions of opportunities to developnew knowledge, skills, and abilities through job experience and formaltraining (e.g., "I have sufficient opportunity to develop new knowledgethrough formal training"). A 7-point response scale was used with 1 ="Strongly disagree" to 7 = "Strongly agree." The intemal consistencyreliability of this scale was .90.

Willingness to accept movement opportunities. The extent to whichparticipants were willing to accept upward, downward, or lateral movementopportunities was assessed with seven items. A 7-point response scalewas used with 1 = "Very unwilling" to 7 = "Very willing." Items werewritten to assess all possible movement options within the organization.Unfortunately, data regarding actual employee mobility was not availableto confirm the self-reported responses. Single items were developed formovement options involving promotion with relocation and acceptance of alower-level position ("How willing are you to pursue a promotion requiringrelocation of your residence?" "How willing are you to pursue a lower-level position to get experience in another division, bureau, or individualunit?"). Two items were developed to assess willingness to accept lateralmovement with relocation ("How willing are you to pursue a lateral transferfrom a central office position to a field position?" "How willing are youto pursue a lateral transfer requiring relocation of your residence?"). Theintercorrelation of these items was .47. As a result, responses to theseitems were combined into a 2-item scale. Finally, a scale was formed basedon participants' responses to three items designed to assess willingness to

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

aeeept a lateral transfer without relocation ("How willing are you to pursuea lateral transfer into another division, bureau, or individual unit?" "Howwilling are you to pursue a lateral transfer to another state agency?" "Howwilling are you to pursue a lateral transfer into another discipline in yourcurrent division, bureau or unit?"). The intemal consistency reliability ofthis scale was .86.

Results

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the variables arepresented in Table 1. On average, participants were satisfied with their cur-rent jobs (M = 535, SD - 1.36), believed they were qualified for promotion(M = 5.96. SD = 1.19), but perceived a lack of movement opportunities (M= 2.98. SD = 1.26). Participants reported a greater willingness to accept apromotion involving relocation (M = 4.54, SD = 2.00) than a lower-levelposition (M = 2.58. SD = 1.66). Examination of the correlations reportedin Table 1 indicates that Hypotheses 1, 3, 4, and 7 were fully supported.Participants in early career stage were more willing to accept movementopportunities than were individuals in later career stages. Also, the greaterthe discrepancy between the current job and the "ideal" job, the more will-ing participants were to accept upward, downward or lateral movementopportunities. The longer participants' community or job tenure, the lesswilling they were to accept any movement opportunity.

Partial support was found for Hypotheses 2, 10, and II . Lower levelsof job satisfaction were significantly related to willingness to accept lateraltransfer and lower-level position, but job satisfaction had no influence onlateral transfer or promotion involving relocation. Beliefs regarding readi-ness for promotions were weakly related to willingness to accept promotion.However, beliefs regarding readiness for promotion did not have the ex-pected negative relationship with willingness to accept lateral or downwardmovement opportunities. The availability of development opportunities inthe current job was most strongly related to willingness to move laterallywithout relocation (i.e., employees with fewer developmental opportunitiesin their current jobs were more willing to accept lateral transfers). Norelationship was found between availability of developmental opportunitiesand willingness to accept a lateral transfer requiring relocation. Althoughsignificant correlations were observed between willingness to accept pro-motion requiring relocation or a lower-level position and the availabilityof developmental opportunities in the current job, the relationship was ap-proximately zero.

No support was found for Hypotheses 5 and 6. The wage-eaming statusof the family and job specialization had little impact on willingness toaccept any of the movement opportunities. Results regarding the influence

RAYMOND A. NOE ET AL. 571

O

O^

CO

^

m

O

• * *

O

*

* *o r- o

r . O

o o

r-AO

OON

OP

cd£ isP o '-(D ^ y ;

O

ON00rnXiO

rn

00

o

p

*o S

*

TT r-- mO O O

** * *O r- omoo

*-x- * *r o r---O O O

oo

i t

o o o

r j -O OJO Tt O

O ON O ON—H O E— —

ooo

*fN

O

O

o

*o

OON

wo'

.2 H•§ o

oii 3 e

o

u o

I I—!

c

-ac

CL — a -S§.-

r rn -^ oo

UON O

UO

o

o

O

00ON

pr*o

ON

o

o

OO

m

o ••^ P

B ^ a.o 5 *-

-.17

*-.

15*

.07*

* -

-.06

*

1

*

m

wo

-.04

.03

p

p11

.63*

.40*

-.09

*

00"

.11*

.05

*

.23

.40*

.61*

-.08

*.0

0-.

03-.

07**

-

f

*

Tt

*T trn

*ON(N

*rn

*MD

O

rn

Oc

f— {JJ

> 3

2

O\

O

O

TT

o

-.1

5*

1

*

p11

O N

-.26

*

1

*

1

*ON

-.38

*-.

05

-

1

*

rn

-.1

1*

1

*#

pI1

*

-^ (NWOO

O —•

•5

2

no

x:

o '^

O

wo

T t OOlO uoTt CN

co

Oa.

c —

1Q

ON

O

trnON

*

I V

572 PHkSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

of joh tenure and awareness of mobility opportunities were opposite tothose hypothesized (see Hypothesis 9). The greater participants' awarenessof movement opportunities, the less willing they were to accept lateraltransfer without relocation. Awareness of mobility opportunities was notrelated to willingness to accept a promotion or a lower-level position.

Hierarchical Rci^ression Results

In order to detemiine the unique contribution of each independent vari-able in explaining the variance in willingness to accept the four movementoptions and to test Hypothesis 8, hierarchical multiple regression analysiswas used. Use of hierarchical regression analysis reduces the likelihoodof Type I error by entering sets of predictors into the regression equationand examining the significance level of individual variables only if the en-tire set makes a contribution to the regression equation (Cohen & Cohen,1975). Career stage was entered first into the equation, followed by jobfavorability, family characteristies. job tenure and specialization, perceivedmovement opportunities, and development opportunities. Employees in themaintenance career stage served as the reference group for the career stagevariable. Separate regression equations were computed for the four move-ment options (lateral transfer with and without relocation, promotion withrelocation, lower-level position). Hypothesis 8 was tested by including avariable based on the product of the discrepancy mdex and participants'responses to the item regarding desire to remain in the current job. Theinteraction terms were entered after the main effects were included in themodels. Only participants who provided complete data on all variableswere included in the regression analysis. This resulted in a sample size of780. Table 2 shows the results of the hierarchical regression analysis.

Regression results were similar for willingness to accept lateral trans-fer with and without relocation. Variables included in the two modelsexplained approximately 21% of the vananee in willingness to accept bothlateral transfer options. Individuals in trial and advancement career stageswere more willing to accept a lateral transfer than individuals in the main-tenance stage. The greater the participants' community tenure, the lesstheir willingness to accept lateral movement opportunities. As expected,community tenure had a strong negative impact on lateral transfer withrelocation (y9 - - .25) . Job favorability had the largest influence on lateraltransfer without relocation (/?^A = .09), while job tenure and special-ization had the greatest influence on willingness to accept lateral transferwithout relocation (i?"A = .07). Availability of mobility opportunitieshad a significant effect on willingness to accept lateral transfer requiringrelocation (^ = .11), but no effect on lateral transfer without relocation.

RAYMOND A. NOE ET AL. 573

co

**

o O O*o

o o o o ooO

ooO

o

o

ro

o o O00 ON

o o*ON

oo

*ONO

ON

o

.2 o*O

mO

*o

*o

ro

c oo O\

c_ooBP

fN

* *m — fN

O s : g ^ 2 no

OO

oOO O

CQ

cO

uo

s

s

o

*"O

o

09

o

*p

34

*p

8

n

O

o

Oo

o

* *rNo

5*

O rj o o O

2

OS

P3

C

.2

O

O

*o

*ONO

*

o

o o

03

c

u

-o

\c o

Oij OO03 C3

C fN

*LO 00

o o*<N

*fNf N

MDo

*T t(N

c ^o *+-•

•J I ! CX—3C3 'U w

c E2 ^ o c. o - g

o O

tu

oc

oD.

O

a-.

fN<utoo

aCO

ra

oV

*

oo00

374 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

The regression equation explained the most variance in participants'willingness to accept promotion without relocation (i?^ = .29). Job favor-ability and job tenure and specialization had the greatest impact on will-ingness to accept promotion {R^A = .09). Significant regression weightsare identical to those found for lateral transfer options with one exception.Participants' perceptions of qualifications for promotions had a significanteffect on willingness to accept promotion requiring relocation (^ = .08),while perceived availability of movement opportunities had no influence.

Compared with the other movement options, the regression equationfor willingness to accept a lower-level position accounted for the small-est amount of variance [R^ = .08). Participants in the trial career stagewere more willing to accept a lower-level position than individuals in themaintenance stage (/3 — .13). No differences were found between par-ticipants in maintenance and advancement career stages in willingness toaccept lower-level positions. Although family characteristics explained sig-nificance vanance in the other movement options, no significant effect wasevident for willingness to accept a lower-level position.

The interaction term included in the equation was not statistically sig-nificant. Therefore, Hypothesis 8 was not supported.

Discussion

This study found that employees in early career stages with little com-munity tenure who perceived a lack of congruence between their current and"ideal" jobs and expressed little desire to remain in their current jobs, weremore willing to accept lateral transfer with or without relocation, promotionwith relocation, or a lower-level position. Employee perceptions regardingthe availability of movement opportunities were related only to willingnessto accept lateral transfer requiring relocation or a lower-level position. Themore knowledgeable employees were conceming specific movement op-portunities and the more specialized their skills, the less willing they wereto accept movement opportunities involving lower-level positions. Oppor-tunities to participate in career development activities had no influence onemployee willingness to accept downward, upward, or lateral movementopportunities.

The issue of how to make downward movement in the organizationmore attractive to employees and facilitate acceptance of this type of mo-bility opportunity remains unknown. The variables included in this studyexplained only a small amount of variance in employees' willingness to ac-cept downward movement. The largest influence on acceptance of down-ward movement was the degree of job specialization. Employees withspecialized skills were less willing to engage in downward movement. Fu-ture research should investigate the influence of job specialization and other

RAYMOND A. NOE ET AL. 375

individual and organizational factors that inhibit employees' willingness toaccept downward movement opportunities.

The lack of a significant effect of knowledge of mobility options andopportunities to participate in career development activities on willing-ness to accept upward, downward, or lateral job movement was surprising.Sugalski and Greenhaus (1986) found that managers who aspired to movewithin the organization engaged in more career exploration than managerswho intended to remain in their current positions. Gould and Penley (1984)found that employees who had career strategies moved more quiekly up theorganizational hierarchy than did employees who had not actively pursuedcareer interests. The failure to find a significant effect for the availabilityof career development opportunities on willingness to accept movementopportunities may be due to the operationalization of career developmentopportunities used in this study. Career development opportunities includedopportunities to develop knowledge and skills through either formal trainingor opportunities in the current job. Gould and Penley (1984) define careerstrategies as behavior that may reduce the time required and uncertaintysurrounding the attainment of important career objectives. Career strategiesinclude creating opportunities, extended work involvement, seeking careerguidance, and networking. Studies that investigate the extent to whichcareer strategizing enhances employees' willingness to accept movementopportunities are needed.

Spouse's employment status had little influence on employee willing-ness to accept mobility opportunities, regardless of relocation requirements.This finding adds to the ambiguity of previous research regarding the influ-ence of spouse's employment status on employee relocation and mobility.Unfortunately, in this study we had no information regarding the type of jobheld by the spouse (i.e., professional, technical, clerical). Duncan and Per-ruci (1976) did collect information regarding the spouse's job. They foundthat the the occupational prestige of the spouse's job, relative contributionto total family income, and opportunities for employment in different labormarkets had no effect on the probability that the family would relocate. Itshould be noted, however, that in their study all subjects were male, andthe data were collected in the late 1960s. Given the changes in attitudestoward women and work that have occurred, future studies of employeemobility need to include more detailed information regarding the spouse'sjob: for example, occupational prestige, relative contribution to total familyincome, and labor market characteristics.

Study Limitations

This study is important because it is one of the first attempts to deter-mine the individual, family, and job characteristics that influence employee

376 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

willingness to accept specific movement opportunities (i.e., promotion, lat-eral transfer, and downward movement opportunities). However, the resultso\ ihis study should be interpreted with caution for several reasons. First,study results may be contaminated by method variance (i.e., informationregarding the various mobility options and their hypothesized antecedentswas collected on the same questionnaire). Unfortunately, the organizationin which this study was conducted is likely similar to other organizationsthat fail to keep accurate, accessible records of employee movement, mak-ing resolution of the method variance problem difficult. Second, the surveyitems were developed by the organization prior to the authors' involvementin the project. Therefore, the construct validity of many of the measuresused in this study may be suspect. Third, jobs in the organization in whichthis study was conducted constitute a single occupational group (i.e., nat-ural resources). Therefore, it was not possible to examine differences inemployees' willingness to accept mobility opportunities across occupations.

Practical Implications

In this study, the proposed antecedents of employee willingness to ac-cept mobility opportunities can be grouped into two categories. Factorssuch as opportunities for career development, knowledge of movement op-portunities, and qualilications for movement can be influenced by changesin the organization's employee development and relocation policies for theexplicit purpose of enhancing employee willingness to accept mobility op-portunities. The remaining factors included in this study are either notinfluenced by changes in organizational policy (e.g., career stage, spouse'semployment) or directly related to other important organizational outcomesbesides willingness to move so that manipulating them strictly for the pur-pose of enhancing mobility might have undesirable consquences for otheraspects of the employment relationship, such as attendance behavior andproductivity. For example, this study identified a negative relationship be-tween job satisfaction and mobility, but we would not recommend that or-ganizations attempt to decrease employees' job satisfaction. Unfortunately,the results of this study suggest that the variables most readily influencedby organizational policies may not have a significant impact on employeewillingness to accept mobility opportunities. Therefore, the practical im-plications of our results are limited.

The negative relationship between skill specialization and employeewillingness to accept a downward move has potential implications for hu-man resource practitioners. Employees with specialized skills may be lesswilling to accept downward movement because these positions require theuse of basic technical skills that are not interesting or challenging. Hall &Isabella (1985) suggest that downward moves are more likely to be seen by

RAYMOND A. NOE ET AL. 577

employees as positive opportunities if (I) they are an integral part of theorganizational culture regarding employee development, (2) the new jobrequires expanded use of knowledge and skills. (3) retraining opportunitiesare provided, and (4) downward moves are part of a coherent personal de-velopment plan that is communicated to the employee. Organizations mayneed to include participation in task forces, special projects, or other typesof growth opportunities in order to entice employees with specialized skillsto accept downward movement opportunities.

Future Research Directions

Employees' career stage, perceptions of job favorability and movementopportunities, and job tenure and specialization had a significant, but small,influence on willingness to accept movement opportunities. Considerationof other factors such as employees' job history, career goals, perceptionsregarding the work environment in the mobility opportunity, and organiza-tionl commitment may further our understanding of the factors that affectwillingness to accept upward, downward, or lateral movement opportuni-ties. For example, Rosenbaum (1979) found that individuals' careers arehighly influenced by the amount of challenge inherent in the first job andthe extent of early promotions. Similarly, initial functional area and thenumber of different jobs held appear to be related to career attainment(Forbes, 1987). One hypothesis is that employees who have had initiallychallenging work and early promotions may be more willing to accept mo-bility opportunities if such movement brings the employees closer to theircareer goals. Additionally, Seholl (1983) suggests that individuals developtimetables for movement, and once they pass the expected point in time formovement to occur there are changes in attitudes and behaviors. Individ-uals who have failed to receive desired promotions and attribute their lackof advancement to factors beyond their control may exhibit symptoms ofleamed helplessness (Martinko & Gardner, 1982). As a result, employeesmay become passive and fail to respond to mobility opportunities. Futureresearch studies should attempt to collect information regarding employeecareer goals and detailed job histories in order to determine how previousjob movement rates and career goals influence employee willingness toaccept mobility opportunities.

Employees' perceptions regarding the work environment they will en-counter if they accept the movement opportunity may influence their will-ingness to accept such offers. For example, Latack (1984) suggests thatindividuals may not want to move because of perceptions of increased roleambiguity and role overload associated with the new position. Employeesmay also consider the extent to which the new job environment encourages

578 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

prosocial behavior and the availability of role models. Prosocial behav-ior is behavior intended to promote the welfare of the individual towardwhich it is directed (Brief & Motowidio, 1986). Activities such as assistingco-workers with job-related and personal matters is an example of a typeof prosocial behavior. Employees in work units characterized by a highdegree of prosocial behavior are likely more trusting and understanding ofothers and more satisfied with their jobs. If mobility opportunities involvemovement to positions in which the work environment is perceived byemployees to be characterized by less prosocial behavior than the currentposition, willingness to move may be adversely effected.

Role models can reduce fear during exploration and experimentationat a new job. Models may also provide psychosocial functions such ascounseling, friendship, and conveyance of unconditional positive regard.Although Pinder and Walter (1984) emphasize the importance of role mod-els for development following relocation, employees' perceptions of theavailability of role models may influence willingness to accept mobilityopportunities. Future research regarding acceptance of mobility opportuni-ties should investigate the influence of employee perceptions regarding theavailability of social support and role models in the new work environment.

Organizational commitment is expected to be positively related to em-ployees' willingness to accept mobility opportunities. According to Mow-day, Steers, and Porter (1979), individuals with high levels of organizationalcommitment have a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization'sgoals and values, are willing to exert effort to attain organizational goals,and have a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization. Em-ployees' with high levels of organizational commitment who also perceivemobility opportunities as helping the organization meet its goals may bemore willing to accept mobility opportunities than will employees' withlow levels of organizational commitment.

In order to gain a better understanding of the factors that influencemobility, future studies should collect information regarding employees'personal characteristics, job characteristics, and job-related attitudes, andthey should examine personnel files for evidence of actual movement withinthe organization, transfer requests, promotions, and refusals of mobilityopportunities.

REFERENCES

Ahlburg DA, Kimmel L. (1986). Human resources management implications of the changingage structure in the U.S. labor force. In Rowland KM, Ferris GR (Eds.), Research inpersonnel and human resources management, (vol. 4. pp. 339-374). Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

Anderson JC. Milkovich GT, Tsui A. (1981). A model of intraorganizational mobility.Academy of Management Review, 6, 529-538.

RAYMOND A. NOE ET AL. 579

Beehr TA. Tuber TD, Walsh JT. (1980). Perceived mobility channels: Criteria for intraor-gani/ational job mobility. Ori^anizational Behavior and Human Performance. 26,

Brief AD. Motowidio SJ. (1986). Prosocia! organizational behaviors. Academy oment Review, IL 71(V725.

Carruthers ME, Pinder CC- (1V83). Urban geographic factors aiid location satisfaction fol-lowing a personal transfer. Academy <>f Management Journal. 26, 320-526.

Cohen J, Cohen P. (1975). Applied multiple rc^^ressuml correlation analysis for the behavioralsciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dawis RU, Lofquist LH, Weiss DJ. (1968). A theory of work adjustment: A revision (Min-nesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: XXHl). Minneapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota, Industrial Relations Center.

Duncan RP. Penuci CC. (1976). Dual occupation families and migration. American Socio-logical Revie\i\ 41, 252-261.

Forbes. JB. (1987). Early intraorgani/ational mobility: Patterns and influences. Academy ofManai^ement Journal, 3fK 110-125.

Feldman DC, Brett JM. (1983). Coping with new jobs: A comparative study of new hiresand job changers. Academy of Mana\iement JournaL 26, 258-272.

Gould S. (1979). Characteristics of career planners in upwardly mobile occupations. Academyof Mana^^ement JournaL 22, 539-550.

Gould S, Penley LE. (1984). Career strategies and salary profession: A study of their relation-ships in a municipal bureaucracy. Ors^anizational Behavior and Human Peiformance,34, 244-265.

Gould S, Penley LE. (1985). A study of the correlates of the willingness to relocate. Acudemvof Management Journal, 28, 472—478.

Hall DT, Nougaim K. (1968). An examination ot Maslow's need hierarchy m an organiza-tional setting. Ori^anizanonal Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 12-35.

Hall DT, Isabella LA. (1985). Downward movement and career development. OrganizationalDynamics, 14, 5-23.

Hill RE. Miller EL. (1981). Job changes and the middle seasons of a man's life. Academy ofMana}>ement Journal. 24, 114-127.

Jordaan JP. (1963). Exploratory behavior: The formation of self and occupational concepts.In Super DE, Stratisher R. Mattin N. Jordaan JD (Eds.), Career development selfconcept theory (pp. 42-78), New York, College Exam Board.

Landau J, Hammer TH. (1986). Clerical employees" perceptions of intraorgani/ationa! careeropportunities. Academy of Manai^ement Journal, 29. 385-^04.

Latack JC. (1984). Career transitions within organizations: An exploratory study of work,non-work, and coping strategies. Or\>anizational Behavior and Human Performance,34, 29^322.

Louis MR. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in enteringunfamiliar organization settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251.

March JG, Simon HA. (1958). Organizations, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Markham WT, Macken PO, Bonjean CM, Corder J. (1983). A note on sex, geographic

mobility, and career advancement. Social Forces, 6/, 1138-1146.Martinko MJ, Gardner WL. (1982). Learned helplessness: An altemative explanation for

performance deficits. Academy of Management Review, 7, 195-204.Maynard CE, Zawacki RA. (1979). Mobilit>' and the dual career couple. Personnel Journal,

26, 538-548.*Moore ML, Miller E, Fossum J. (1974). Prediction of managerial career expectations. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 59, 90-92.Mowday RT, Steers RM, Porter LW. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15, 224-247.

580 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Muchinsky I'M. (1^)77). Hmployce absenteeism: A review of the literature. Journal ofVoiatiotial Behavior, 10, 3H>-340.

Nidiolson N. il*>S4). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly,

Noe RA, (I'-)S7). iareer and joh attitudes and participation in mentoring relationships: Acareer sfai^c analysis. Unpubhshcd manuscript.

Pinder CC, (1^*77). Multiple predictors of post-transfer satisfactit)n: The role of urban factors.i'! RsoNNi I i's>('n(n i)(,v .?fJ. 543-556.

Fiiuicr (•(". Schrocticr KG. ( 10S7i, Time (o proficiency following job transfers. Academy ofMafiiii^enunt JournaL MK ^M> 353.

Pmdcr (•(', Walter GA. (l')84). Personnel transfers and employee development. In RowlandKM, Icms GR (Hds.i, Rescanh in personnel and human resource management (vol.2, pp. IS7-2IS1. Greenwich, CT; JAI Press.

Rabinov.it/ S, Hal! D1. il'-^ll). Organizational research on job involvement. PsychologicalBulleiin, S4. 265-2KS.

Rees A. (l'-'73). The f:i onomu s of work and pay. New York: Harper & Row.Rhodes SR. Doering M. il983l. An integrated model of career motivation. Aeademy of

Manas^etnent Review. S, 631-63*^.Rosenbaum Jl:, 11' ?' ). Tournament mobility: Career patterns m a corporation. Administrative

Scieme Quarterly. 24, 22(V 241 .

Rush JC". Peacock AC. Milkovich GT. (1980). Career stages: A partial test of Levinson'smodel of life/career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16. 347-359.

Schem EH, (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Read-ing. MA: Addison-Wesley.

Scholl RW (1MS3K Career lines and employment stability. Academy of Management Journal,__V,. X^-~I(I3.

Slocum JW, Cron WL. (1985), Job attitudes and performance durmg three career stages.Jourihi! of \ (>i aiional Behavior, 26, 126-145.

Super DF, i 1* 57}, fhe psyiholoiiy of careers. New York: Harper & Row.Stumpf S.A. Colarelli SM. Hartman K. (1*^83). Development of the career exploration survey

(CI-S), Journal of Vot afional Behavior. 22, 191-226.

Sugalski I D . (ireenhaus JH. (1986). Career exploration and goal setting among managerialemplosees. Journal of \Ocational Behavior, 29, !02-l 14.

Super DE. Hall DT, il^7Ki. Career development: Exploration and planning. In RosenzweigMR. Porter LW (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (pp. 333-372). Palo Alto, CA:Annual Reviews, inc.

Swanson LE Jr, Luloff AE. Warland RH. (1979). Factors influencing willingness to move:An examination of non-metropolitan residents. Rural Sociology. 44, 719-735.

Vardi Y, (1980). Organi/ational career mobility: An integrative model. Academy of Man-ai^ement Review. 5. 341-356.

Vardi Y, Hammer TH. (1977). Intraorganizational mobility and career perceptions amongrank and tile employees in different technologies. Academy of Management Journal,20, 622-634.

Veiga JF. (1981). Plateaued versus non-plateaued managers: Career patterns, attitudes andpath potenlial. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 566-578.

Veiga JF. (1*^83). Mobility influences dunng managerial career stages. Academy of Manage-ment JournaL 26, 64—85.