A multidimensional model of career success was developed aiming to be more inclusive than existing models. In a first study, 22 managers were asked to tell the story of their careers. At the end of each interview, idiosyncratic career success "construct ladders" were constructed for each interviewee through an interactive process with the interviewer. The 42 superordinate career success operationalizations that came forward through this process were then used as input in a Q-sort study in which 30 subject matter experts (SMEXs) served as judges. Through multidimensional scaling (MDS), a model incorporating the different idiosyncratic meanings the interviewees attached to the career success construct was obtained. A two-dimensional configuration (affect-achievement vs. intra-personal-interpersonal) comprising 9 regions (performance, advancement, self-development, creativity, security, satisfaction, recognition, cooperation and contribution) was concluded upon as the optimal solution. Correspondences with earlier conceptual models of career success are spelled out.

No abstract

We examined how perceived distributive and procedural justice affected the relationship between an employee's identification as a high potential (drawn from archival data), job satisfaction and work effort. A questionnaire was distributed within one large company among employees who were and employees who were not identified as a high potential (n = 203). The results indicated that perceptions of distributive justice were significantly higher for employees identified as a high potential. Moreover, perceived distributive justice fully mediated the relationship between an employee's identification and his or her level of job satisfaction. The results also revealed that perceptions of procedural justice moderated the relationship between perceived distributive justice and work effort. Theoretical and practical consequences of these findings are discussed.

Purpose -To examine whether four different generations (Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y) hold different beliefs about career. Career type, career success evaluation and importance attached to organizational security were scrutinized for each generation.Design/methodology/approach -750 people completed a vignette task, rating the career success of 32 fictitious people. Each vignette contained a different combination of five career features (functional level, salary, number of promotions, promotion speed and satisfaction) at two levels (low and high). Furthermore, several items were added in order to determine each participant's career type and the extent to which they attached importance to organizational security.Findings -The majority of participants still had rather "traditional" careers, although younger generations seemed to exhibit larger discrepancies between career preferences and actual career situation. Overall, satisfaction appeared to be the overriding criterion used to evaluate other people's career success. No significant differences were found between generations. With regard to importance attached to organizational security, the Silent Generation and Generation Y scored significantly higher than the other generations.Research limitations/implications -The convenience sampling strategy led to large differences in sample size per generation. Using a vignette design limited the amount and richness of information that could be offered to participants. Perhaps other criteria relevant to real-life career success evaluation were not incorporated in this study. Career Success and Generations 3Originality/value of paper -This study raises questions about the validity of career success operationalizations frequently used in research. It is the first study that examines career success evaluation by means of vignettes.

No abstract

T HIS ARTICLE PROVIDES an overview of the literature on nonprofit principal-agent relationships. It depicts the nature of agency theory and stewardship theory, analyzes the origin of their struggle within the nonprofit structure, and marks directions for a conciliatory approach.Note: We gratefully acknowledge Scott Gassler, Bruno Heyndels, the three anonymous reviewers, and editor Roger Lohmann for their constructive comments.

No abstract

Building on two studies, the current article responds to urgent calls in the literature for more empirical research on how to identify leadership potential. Based on an extensive review of the 1986–2010 literature, and applying a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques, we developed a model of leadership potential consisting of four quadrants: Analytical skills (containing the factors Intellectual curiosity, Strategic insight, Decision making, and Problem solving); Learning agility (containing the factors Willingness to learn, Emotional intelligence, and Adaptability); Drive (containing the factors Results orientation, Perseverance, and Dedication); and Emergent leadership (containing the factors Motivation to lead, Self‐promotion, and Stakeholder sensitivity). Notably, the developed model steers clear from some of the typical issues that tend to hinder valid assessments of leadership potential (i.e., the confound between performance and potential, as well as that between leadership potential and successful, mature leadership). Furthermore, high consensus was found between top managers, line managers, and HR managers about the practical relevance of the proposed model. The article concludes with some specific future avenues for research and practice. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.