The role of human capital, motivation and supervisor sponsorship in predicting career success

Abstract

SummaryBased on Turner's (1960) contest-and sponsored-mobility systems, a comprehensive model of the determinants of career success was examined. Human capital and motivational variables represented the contest-mobility system whereas leader±member exchange and supervisor career mentoring represented the sponsored-mobility system. Results based on data from 245 supervisor±subordinate dyads indicated limited support for the contest-mobility system and strong support for the sponsored-mobility system. Interestingly, the two forms of sponsorship were dierentially related to career outcomes. Speci®cally, leader±member exchange was positively related to salary progression, promotability, and career satisfaction. Career mentoring, however, was only related to promotability.

Strengthening long-term job performance: The moderating roles of sense of responsibility and leader’s support

“…This research demonstrates how the human capital theory and attachment theory can be jointly applied to explain job performance using a combination of primary and secondary data. This perspective is consistent with what previous research has found about career success as explained by a hybrid of the human capital theory and motivation theory (Wayne et al, 1999) whereby motivation is represented by employees’ work engagement and human capital by employees’ learning in training and education programs.…”

Applying career competencies in career management

“…This is contrary to the results of previous research (e.g. Hoath et al, 1998;Wayne et al 1999). It could be interpreted to the effect that individuals working in the participating organisations have not (career) plateaued, since negative outcomes would have been expected to emerge with plateauing.…”

Turnover intention and preparedness for change

“…In retrospect, this can be interpreted as showing that the employees questioned here interpreted turnover intention as a reaction to negative working conditions, in particular to a poor relationship quality with the supervisor or to a low level of satisfaction with the relationship to the supervisor (for the relationship between LMX and satisfaction with supervisors, see Gerstner and Day, 1997). In a study of a US sample, Wayne et al (1999) found a similar correlation between leader‐member exchange and desire for mobility as the one found here between turnover intention and leader‐member exchange ( r =−0.14). Taking into account only the correlation, one might conclude that high leader‐member exchange leads to less turnover intention, indicating that if a company is interested in continuing its relationship with (certain) employees, it is wise to secure good relationships between a leader and each of his/her subordinates.…”