Group & Organization

Management
http://gom.sagepub.com/

Career Commitment: Functions, Correlates, and Management

Stephen M. Colarelli and Ronald C. Bishop
Group & Organization Management 1990 15: 158
DOI: 10.1177/105960119001500203

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/15/2/158

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Group & Organization Management can be
found at:

Email Alerts: http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://gom.sagepub.com/content/15/2/158.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 1, 1990

What is This?

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

Career Commitment
FUNCTIONS, CORRELATES, AND MANAGEMENT

STEPHEN M. COLARELLI
RONALD C. BISHOP
Central Michigan University

Because of the longitudinal nature of careers, career commitment would seem to be important
for career development and progression. Yet it has received little attention in the career literature.
This article addresses the role of career commitment in career development and examines some
personal and situational correlates of career commitment. The sample includes both managerial
n = 341) and professional (
( n 85) employees. Among the variables examined, one of the
=

strongest correlates of career commitment was having a mentor. Practical implications are
discussed, including those for mentoring and organizational career development programs.

Despite the increased attention to in recent years

career development
(Feldman, 1988; Greenhaus, 1987; Hall, 1976; Hall & Associates, 1986;
London & Stumpf, 1982; Sonnenfeld, 1984), little research exists on the
concept of career commitment. Yet, because of the longitudinal nature of
careers, career commitment is important. Because a career involves an
individually perceived sequence of separate but related positions that a
person occupies over time (Hall, 1976; Solomon, Bishop, & Bresser, 1986),
commitment to a career would seem crucial to career progression and
development.
Career commitment is also relevant to practical concerns of individuals
and organizations. It is critical to the development of ability because com-
mitment to a career helps one persist long enough to develop specialized
skills (cf. Perrow, 1986). Studies of talented individuals show that years of
training, development, and experience were necessary to attain high levels
We would like to thank Ron Beaulieu, Jeff Greenhaus, Kevin Love, Kathy Utecht, and two
anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article, and Timothy Fisher
for assistance with the data analysis. Please send requests for reprints to either Stephen M.
Colarelli, DepartmentofPsychology, orRonald C. Bishop, DepartmentofManagement, Central
Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859.
Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, June 1990 158-176
© 1990 Sage Publications, Inc.

158

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

 159

of skill (e.g., Bloom, 1985; Kotter, 1982). Commitment to a career also pro-
vides the staying power to cultivate business and professional relationships.
Such relationships are useful for trading favors and services (Kaplan &
Mazique, 1983), as sources of information (Granovetter, 1974), and for
increasing one’s exposure to organizational decision makers. Finally, career
commitment may be crucial to occupational survival in the information age
(London & Stumpf, 1986). Commitment to an internally defined career may
become an important source of occupational meaning and continuity as
organizations become more fluid and less able to guarantee employment
security.
Career commitment is characterized by the development of personal
career goals, the attachment to, identification with, and involvement in those
goals. Career commitment should transcend occupations or jobs (Hall,1976).
It is analytically - although not necessarily empirically - distinct from other
types of occupational commitment. Job commitment suggests commitment
to a relatively short-term set of objective task requirements. Career commitment
-which may involve several jobs-involves a longer perspective and is
related to the subjective (or internal) career envisioned by the individual (cf.
Hall, 1976). Organizational commitment suggests commitment to an institu-
tion and institutional goals (Randall, 1987). Career commitment, on the other
hand, involves self-generated goals and commitment to one’s own career,
which may lead to employment in several organizations. Professional com-
mitment refers to professional employees’ commitment to their professions
(e.g., to science, engineering, music; Parasuraman & Nachman, 1987).
Although commitment to a profession typically implies commitment to a
career, nonprofessional employees may also be committed to their careers
(Hall, 1976).
The extent to which one is committed to a career will be reflected by his
or her persistence in pursuing career goals in spite of obstacles and setbacks
that are encountered. One who shows less career commitment will be inclined
to make a career change rather than persevere in achieving career objectives.
For example, the lawyer who is strongly committed to a career in private
practice may endure financial and professional hardship in order to prevail.
In contrast, a lawyer with less career commitment would be expected to
abandon the pursuit of a private practice for work with a government agency
or a corporation, or perhaps to abandon legal work.
The concept of career commitment applies also to those pursuing more
than one career simultaneously -such as the wife and mother who is also a
bank officer or the insurance agent who also pursues a career in politics or

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

160

community service. Commitment to one career may be greater, although one

may optimize the accommodations that each career requires of the other.
A good deal of research exists on job involvement (Rabinowitz & Hall,
1977) and organizational commitment (Randall, 1987; Steers, 1977); simi-
larly, research has been conducted on cosmopolitanism and localism (Glaser,
1964; Gouldner, 1957; Stahl, McNichols, & Manby, 1979). However, very
little research exists on career commitment (J. H. Greenhaus, personal
communication, May 10, 1988; Hall, 1976; London, 1983). In this study, we
examine some personal and situational correlates of career commitment.
Personal characteristics that are likely to correlate with career commitment
include age, locus of control, and socialization experiences. Situational
characteristics that are likely to correlate with career commitment include
having a mentor, role ambiguity, role conflict, and inter-role conflict.

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Age. There are three reasons why age should affect career commitment.
First, career commitment should increase as occupational identity solidifies.
As people age, they become focused in career orientation and occupationally
stable (Gottfredson, 1977). Second, as people grow older, they become
invested in their careers. The more time and energy (and other resources) that
one invests into a career, the greater the stake and the more commitment to
a particular career. Third, as an individual ages and settles into a career, he

or she tends to close off other career options. One has, in effect, burned

bridges to other careers. There is less time available to learn new skills and
to develop the expertise that will bring commensurate financial rewards.
Of course, events could occur as people age that may weaken career
commitment - midlife transitions, plateauing, and obsolescence.’ However,
although these may reduce career commitment, the overall relationship
between career commitment and age across groups of employees should
remain positive until retirement. The forces that strengthen the relationship
between career commitment and age should outweigh those that weaken the
relationship (cf. Lawrence, 1980).
Locus of control. A sense of personal responsibility is helpful for devel-
oping one’s own career goals. People with an internal locus of control are
more likely to look to themselves for direction, whereas externals look to
others (Spector,1982). Internals are less conforming (Spector,1982) and set
harder goals than externals (Yukl & Latham, 1978). Several studies show that
internals demonstrate greater career effectiveness than externals do. In a

study of nonsupervisory workers, Hammer and Vardi (1981) found a positive

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

 161

relationship between career self-management activities and career mobility

in organizations that encouraged personal initiative. Among a national sam-
ple of middle-aged men, Andrisani and Nestel (1976) found that internal
locus of control was positively related to earnings, advancement, and occu-
pational attainment. Biographies of individuals with distinguished careers
also suggest a strong sense of internality -for example, see biographies of
Julius Caesar (Kahn, 1986), Winston Churchill (Brendon, 1984), and John
D. Rockefeller (Nevins, 1940). We expect that internal locus of control will
be positively correlated with career commitment. The relation between career
commitment and locus of control may be mutually causal. On the one hand,
an internal orientation should lead to career commitment (London & Stumpf,

1982); on the other hand, as one becomes increasingly committed to (and

successful in) a career, one’s sense of internality may increase as well (cf.
Anderson, 1977; Andrisani & Nestel, 1976).
Socialization -years of education. We include years of education as a
personal variable reflecting socialization. Socialization experiences are im-
portant in developing and sustaining career commitment because they shape
an individual’s career identity, goals, and values (Frese, 1982). These keep
one anchored to a career despite opportunities to become sidetracked. Ex-
tended training in institutions of higher education and education beyond
formal schooling (e.g., in-service training) are common forms of occupa-
tional socialization. Although one function of education is to teach knowl-
edge and skills, education also transmits values and shapes occupational
identities (Becker, Geer, Hughes, & Strauss, 1961). There are, of course,
other avenues for occupational socialization (the home environment and
parental role models). However, education -particularly higher education
-is a principal mechanism (Becker et al., 1961).

SITUATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Mentor. Because mentors can enhance career and psychosocial develop-

ment, having a mentor should be an important determinant of career com-
mitment. Mentors can advance their proteges’ careers through sponsorship,
coaching, protection, exposure, and challenging assignments (Kram, 1986).
They can enhance their proteges’ psychosocial development through role
modeling, counseling, psychological support, and friendship (Kram, 1986).
These functions of mentoring should increase career commitment by facili-
tating self-directedness, career involvement, career success, and positive
attitudes toward a career. In addition, the mentor (who is usually 8 to 15 years
older than the prot6g6) may exemplify the rewards that can be gained if an

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

162

individual sticks witha career. The mentor-prot6g6 relationship is a personal

one (Kram, 1985, 1986). The core of the relationship includes the needs and
ambitions of two individuals. This personal focus is suited to the development
of career commitment because career commitment also revolves around the
needs and ambitions of the individual.
Role ambiguity and role conflict. Commitment to a career requires focused
energy. To the extent that one’s mental and physical energies are diverted to
other matters, it would be difficult to develop and maintain commitment to
a career. Two factors that may affect career commitment include role ambi-

guity and role conflict. When an individual experiences role ambiguity, he

or she is unclear as to what tasks to perform; when an individual is experi-

encing role conflict, he or she faces incompatible role demands. In both cases,
energy is diffused from career goals and directed toward coping with a
confusing work environment.
Inter-role conflict. Inter-role conflict is a job condition that negatively
affects career commitment. Inter-role conflict involves incompatible role
demands from different spheres of life. This typically involves conflict
between family and work roles (Kopelman, Greenhaus, & Connolly, 1983).
The greater the inter-role conflict, the more distracted one may become from
career priorities (Parasuraman, Greenhaus, Rabinowitz, Bedeian, &

Mossholder, 1989).

HYPOTHESES

The first purpose of this study was to examine the relationships of personal
and situational characteristics with career commitment. We examined five
hypotheses.
1. Age will correlate positively with career commitment.
2. Internal locus of control will be positively correlated with career commitment.
3. Years of education will correlate positively with career commitment.
4. Having a mentor will be positively correlated with career commitment.
5. Role ambiguity, role conflict, and inter-role conflict will correlate negatively
with career commitment.

The second purpose of the study was to examine the generality of the
hypotheses using managerial and professional samples. Specifically, we will
examine whether the personal and situational variables influence career
commitment among individuals who are oriented toward managerial work
and individuals who are oriented toward professional work.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

 163

METHOD

SUBJECTS

This study used two samples of subjects, 341 MBA students who were
employed full-time and 85 professional chemists. The MBA students were
from public universities in a large urban center in the northeastern United
States. Eighty percent had been with their current employer for over 3 years.
Fifty-three percent were between 25 and 34 years of age, and 25% were over
34. Fifty-one percent were men. Of the chemists, all were employed full-time.
Eighty percent had been with their current employer for over 3 years, and
31 % had been with their current employer for over 15 years. Ninety-two
percent attended graduate school or earned a graduate degree. Forty-two
percent were between the ages of 35 and 44, and 46% were over 44. Forty-two
percent were men. In addition, all were members of the American Chemical
Society.

PROCEDURE

Questionnaires were administered to the MBA students by instructors in

classroom settings. They were distributed to students who were employed
full-time and were completed and returned by all of the students who received
them. Three hundred questionnaires were randomly distributed to the chem-
ists at a national meeting of the American Chemical Society. The chemists
were asked to mail their completed questionnaires to a university address in
an attached, stamped envelope. Eighty-five questionnaires were returned

(28% response).

MEASURES

Background information. Participants indicted their age, sex, marital

status, level of education, occupation, current annual salary, whether or not
they were in a degree program, present employment status, years on their
present job, and years with present employer on the first section of the
questionnaire.
Career commitment. Two scales measuring career commitment were
included in the questionnaire. The first scale originally consisted of 14 items
from Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian’s (1974) organizational commit-
ment scale. For these items the word career was substituted for organization,
and minor changes were made in wording. After item analysis, one item was

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

164

eliminated. Four original items were developed. All items were anchored
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The final scale included 17
items and is presented in Appendix A. The coefficient alphas for the scale for
the managerial, professional, and combined samples were .94, .92, and .94,
respectively.
This scale was chosen for modification because the concept of organiza-
tion commitment on which it was based is parallel to our concept of career
commitment in terms of the crucial affective and behavioral dimensions of
commitment. These are the strength of an individual’s identification with and
involvement in the commitment object. By substituting the word career for
organization, the concept of career commitment is accurately stated and thus
justifies the substitution of career for organization in scale items where
appropriate.
The second scale was based on Alutto, Hrebiniak, and Alonso’s (1970)
four-item organizational commitment scale. As with the first scale, the word
career was substituted for organization. The items were anchored 1 (no), 2

(uncertain), and 3 (yes) and are presented in Appendix B. The coefficient

alphas for this scale for the managerial, professional, and combined samples
were .84, .82, and .84, respectively.
Locus of control. Locus of control was measured by Rotter’s (1966) scale.
The scale is composed of 23 items measuring locus of control and 6 filler
items. Test-retest reliabilities range from .55 to .72 (Rotter, 1966). The
coefficient alphas for this scale for the managerial, professional, and com-
bined samples were .82, .79, and .81, respectively. Lower scores indicate a
higher level of internality.
Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment was mea-
sured by Porter et al.’s scale (1974). It consists of 15 items, anchored from
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The coefficient alphas for the
managerial, professional, and combined samples were .83, .92, and .86,
respectively.
Mentor. Whether subjects had a mentor was assessed by the following
question: &dquo;Do you currently recognize someone who is a mentor or a sponsor
with regard to your career?&dquo; Subjects responded by answering yes (coded 1)
or no (coded 2). The item was reverse coded so that having a mentor would
be associated with a higher value.
Role conflict and role ambiguity. Role conflict and role ambiguity were
measured by scales from Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970). The role
conflict scale consists of eight items, anchored from 1 (strongly disagree) to
7 (strongly agree). The coefficient alphas for the managerial, professional,
and combined samples were .80, .77, and .79, respectively. The role ambigu-

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

 165

ity scale consists of six items, anchored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7

(strongly agree). The coefficient alphas for the managerial, professional, and
combined samples were .73, .74, and .73, respectively.
Inter-role conflict. Inter-role conflict was measured by Kopelman et al.’s
(1983) eight-item scale. It measures the degree of conflict between work and
family roles. Items are anchored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). The coefficient alphas for the managerial, professional, and combined
samples were .92, .91, and .92, respectively.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAREER

AND ORGANIZATION COMMITMENT

Evidence for the construct validity of the career commitment measure can
be found in Table 1. Convergent validity is the extent to which two measures
of the same construct correlate with each other and correlate similarly with
other variables. The two forms of the career commitment scales correlate
strongly with each other, r = .63 (p < .01). Both forms of career commitment
display a similar pattern of correlations with all of the additional variables in
the correlation matrix, with the exception of role ambiguity and inter-role
conflict.
Discriminant validity is the extent to which measures of different con-
structs do not correlate with each other and do not correlate in the same
fashion with other variables. The long form of career commitment shares
approximately 25% of its variance with organizational commitment, and the
short form shares approximately 16%. The pattern of correlations between
career commitment and the other variables is somewhat similar-but not
identical to - the pattern of correlations between organizational commitment
and the other variables. Career commitment (long form) and organizational
commitment correlated significantly and positively with age (rs = .21 and
.29, both at p < .01); education (rs = .20 and .16, both at p < .01); marital
status (rs = .13 and .14, both atp < .01); enrollment in a degree program
(rs = .24 and .34, both at p < .01); salary (rs = .32 and .35, both at p < .01);
and having a mentor (rs = .23 and .32, both at p < .01). They correlated
significantly and negatively with locus of control (both at r = -.18, p <
.0 1 -indicating that a higher degree of commitment is associated with a
higher degree of internal locus of control) and role ambiguity (r = -.18 and
-.30, both at p < .01). They differed on three variables. Career commitment
correlated negatively with inter-role conflict (r = -.15, p < .01), whereas
organizational commitment did not correlate with it. Career commitment was
uncorrelated with years in current job and years with current employer,

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

166

whereas organizational commitment correlated positively with both of them

(both at r .17, p < .01).
=

We factor analyzed the items of the career commitment (long form) and
organizational commitment scales using a varimax rotation. Two fairly
distinct factors emerged-each basically corresponding to the career com-
mitment and organizational commitment items.’
These results suggest that
the measure of career commitment evidences
good convergent validity and modest discriminant validity. Although career
commitment shares some variance with organizational commitment, they do
not appear to be the same construct.

RESULTS

CORRELATIONAL ANALYSES

Table 1 presents the results of the correlations of all variables in the study
for all subjects.
As predicted, career commitment correlated positively and significantly
with age (r = .21, p < .01), years of education (r = .20, p < .01), and having
a mentor (r = .23 p < .01); also, as predicted, career commitment was
negatively correlated with role ambiguity (r = -.18, p < .01), inter-role
conflict (r -.15, p .O1), and locus of control (r = -.18, p < .01). We also
= <

tested for a curvilinear relationship between age and career commitment and
found none.
Table 2 presents the correlations and effect sizes between career commit-
ment (long form) and the personal and situational variables for the total
sample and two subsamples. In the managerial sample, career commitment
correlated positively with age (r = .11, p < .05) and having a mentor (r = .22,
p <.05) and negatively with locus of control (r = -.16, p <.05), role ambiguity
(r = -.12,p <.05), and inter-role conflict (r = -.16,p <.05). In the professional
sample, career commitment correlated positively with years of education
(r = .21 p < .05) and having a mentor (r = .31, p < .01) and negatively with
locus of control (r = - .27, p < .01), role conflict (r = -.21, p < .05), and role
ambiguity (r = -.30 p < .O1 ).

REGRESSION ANALYSES

To examine the unique contribution of the personal and situational vari-

ables to career commitment, we performed hierarchical regression analyses.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

 ~
a
.5
3c
Q
~

rA
s
.0
~ee
ee

~
jM ._6
2
C
0
.9
t
6
e
U

167

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

 N
0B
M
,p
C
.9

Ë8
,a
G,j
8
#
0.5
y
~
19=
~&copy;
~
U a)
M ~£
s
as
~ a

’0
e5
c:::

SE
8
C
O
·L7
8
2
~)
&copy;
Ly ~

C 2
i
..:g ~
e

I IO#
o -= ?
’C

. -o II
U-ci]2N
%,itx _
vs s
cpSS
O&copy;~qfiq
E E j &copy; 1 @ C
:-ö-o~~~
-¡;j .~ 2 ~ c:
iE i% ëOyV
.- $ E S m
C4

t.IJ
~~~~ ’00 II II 11
~

Z ~ .ri c.i *Q.

168

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

 169

TABLE 2
Correlations of Personal and Situation
Variables With Career Commitment by Sample

*p:%.05; **p:s.01.

Where possible, we entered the variables into the regression equations in

temporal order. In individuals, personal variables were assumed to exist prior
to situational variables. Age was entered first, followed by locus of control,
and then by years of education. Among the situational variables, temporal
ordering was more ambiguous, so the situational variables were entered
according to the relative number of people typically represented by each
concept. A mentor, which typically involves one person, was entered first;
this was followed by role conflict and role ambiguity (which may involve
several people); and finally by inter-role conflict (which involves people
from both home and work settings). The regression equation was computed
three times: with all subjects, with the managerial sample, and with the
professional sample. The results of the regression analysis are presented in
Table 3.
With all subjects, significant increments in variance were produced by
age, locus of control, having a mentor, role ambiguity, and inter-role conflict.
The R2 for the total sample was .21 (p < .01). With the managerial sample, a
2
significant increment in variance was produced by having a mentor. The R2
for the managerial sample was .15 (ns). With the professional sample,
significant increments in variance were produced by locus of control, having
a mentor, role conflict, and role ambiguity. The R2 for the professional

sample was .30 (p < .01). Locus of control and role ambiguity added
significant increases in variance in two of the regression equations. Having
a mentor added significant increases in variance in all three equations.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

 « ~
C fl ~ S’
bh

E N
<Ii
S
°# Cd
0e 8
E

uLL N
%
¡;:
iU

sBQJ -S
&dquo;0
C
’&dquo;
b5
°if iU
°C
>
at ief3’
>

fl ~
0 { ...
c
0 W
.... >-.

N_
’S
$*
’o
·C ~
Cd ~
’CU
t)
0() ~5 ~
0
Cc= &copy;
U
UCc~
ea
~
M ~
-~ aS
Cb
Q
iC

1
GO
’3
G’J dr .~
E‘ Q
C
33
~

O ~
ê

oSL°r ij
M

C::I
:a

CU£
c

e
a~ B
.c
» ~
I
~
&copy;
~
b5

~
iU
<C ~.
*X
O 0 ,>
.~ t) iU >
<M
S -g&dquo;3
E 3
0()
C~~ ON
SH~
.

~ b5 !3v
:ë
~
.U ~N y’ U ~4~ V
2QJs. °~
uj M 0

5 ~&dquo;5’;
2(* m

170

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

 171

DISCUSSION

The first purpose of this study was to examine the relationships of personal
and situational variables to career commitment. The results show that both
personal and situational factors are related to career commitment. Age,
internal locus of control, years of education, and having a mentor relate
positively with career commitment; career commitment correlated nega-
tively with role ambiguity and inter-role conflict. In addition, career commit-
ment is positively associated with salary level and enrollment in a degree
program.
The second purpose of this study was to examine the relationships of
personal and situational variables to career commitment in managerial and
professional samples. Overall, these variables related more strongly to career
commitment among professionals. Having a mentor and internal locus of
control related positively, and role ambiguity correlated negatively, with
career commitment in both samples. In looking at the results of the correla-
tional and regression analyses in both samples, having a mentor appeared to
be the most robust correlate of career commitment. Also, our analyses found
that although career commitment and organizational commitment were
correlated, they appeared to be distinct constructs.

LIMITATIONS

Because little research has been done in this area, we would suggest that
our results be interpreted cautiously. A possible limitation of the study is some
method bias resulting from the use of a common instrument (questionnaire).
However, this is unlikely to be a serious problem for at least two reasons.
First, among variables where there was not an a priori reason to expect high
intercorrelations (e.g., sex and career commitment), none were found. Sec-
ond, as Spector (1987) has shown, method bias is generally not a problem
with well-developed instruments. The high alpha levels are evidence of the
soundness of the instruments.
Because this study used a concurrent design, statements implying causal-
ity are not appropriate. Although our research indicates that certain variables
are related to one another, statements about causality must await further
research.
Although a strength of this study is its samples of professional and
managerial employees, we recommend that further studies be conducted with
larger and different samples of professionals, a sample of managers with a

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

172

wider range of age and experience than the managers in our study, and other
types of employees (perhaps those in less career-oriented jobs).

IMPLICATIONS

That both personal and situational variables were associated with career
commitment suggests that organizations may boost career commitment
through selection (e.g., by hiring applicants with more years of education)
and by altering the work environment (e.g., using mentors).
An interesting finding of this study was that having a mentor correlated
positively both with career commitment and organizational commitment.
This may occur because having a mentor may clarify and reinforce links
between both types of commitment. This link may be based on expectations
that commitment to an organization will facilitate career goals. When expec-
tations are weak, less organization commitment may be found while another
organization is sought that offers a greater likelihood for the satisfaction of
career goals.
The mentor who shows prot6g6s how the organization facilitates their
career aspirations plays a more useful role than the mentor who emphasizes
either career goals or organization goals. By exploring how organizational
goals may be congruent with career goals, the mentor fosters a high level of
both forms of commitment. Ideally, the mentor should help the prot6g6 match
career objectives with organizational objectives. This helps the individual
view the organization as a means to achieve career ends and not as an end in
itself.
What can organizations do to enhance the link between organizational
commitment and career commitment? The answer may lie in the extent to
which top managers view career development as an organizational concern.
To what extent is career development seen as important in building work
teams and in making job assignments? If an individual with strong career
commitment is to develop a commitment to the work group and the organi-
zation, he or she must see this commitment as serving career goals as well.
Listed below are four steps that can strengthen the link between career
and organizational commitment:

1. Identify people who can serve as mentors based on the amount of trust that
they have within the organization.
2. Provide mentor training that emphasizes linkages between career goals and
organization goals.
3. Emphasize career counseling that seeks to match personal career goals with
career paths within the organization.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

 173

4. Ensure that career counseling recognizes the political realities of the

organization.

As indicated above, the results of this research can be used for the
development of mentor programs as well as a basis for career development
programs. The relationship between career and organizational commitment
is a topic that needs further empirical study to clarify the conceptual and
practical distinctions between these two forms of commitment.

APPENDIX A
Items in Career Commitment Scale - Long Form

NOTE: Means and SDs are based on combined samples.

a. Reversed scored.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

174

APPENDIX B
Items in Career Commitment Scale-Short Form

NOTE: Means and SDs are based on combined samples.

a. All items were reverse scored.

NOTES

1. We would like to thank Jeff Greenhaus for bringing this to our attention.
2. A copy of the results of the factor analysis is available from either of the authors.

REFERENCES

Alutto, J. A., Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alonso, R. (1970). Correlates of work-related tension. In
G. Somers (Ed.), Proceedings, 23rd Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research
Association (pp. 207-218), Detroit, MI.
Anderson, C. R. (1977). Locus of control, coping behaviors, and performance in a stress setting:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 446-451.
Andrisani, P. J., & Nestel, G. (1976). Internal-external control as a contributor to and outcome
of work experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 156-165.
Becker, H. S., Greer, B., Hughs, E. C., & Strauss, A. (1961). Boys in white: Student culture in
. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
medical school
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine.
Brendon, P. (1984). Winston Churchill: A biography. New York: Harper & Row.
Feldman, D. C. (1988). Managing careers in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Frese, M. (1982). Occupational socializations and psychological development: An un-
deremphasized research perspective in industrial psychology. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 55, 209-224.
Glaser, B. G. (1964). Organizational scientists: Their professional careers. New York: Bobbs-
Merrill.
Gottfredson, G. D. (1977). Career stability and redirection in adulthood. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 62, 436-445.
Gouldner, A. W. (1957). Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles&mdash;I.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 281-306.
Granovetter, M. S. (1974). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Greenhaus, J. H. (1987). Career management. New York: Dryden.
Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

 175

Hall, D. T., & Associates. (1986). Career development in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Hammer, T. H., & Vardi, Y. (1981). Locus of control and career self-management among
nonsupervisory employees in industrial settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 13-29.
Kahn, A. D. (1986). The education of Julius Caesar
. New York: Schocken.
Kaplan, R. E., & Mazique, M. (1983). Trade routes: The manager’s network of relationships
(Technical Report No. 22). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and
interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Per-
formance, 32, 198-215.
Kotter, J. P. (1982). The general manager. New York: Free Press.
Kram, K. E. (1986). Mentoring in the workplace. In D. T. Hall & Associates, Career development
in organizations (pp. 160-201). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Lawrence, B. S. (1980). The myth of the midlife crisis. Sloan Management Review, 21, 35-49.
London, M. (1983). Toward a theory of career motivation. Academy of Management Review, 8,
620-630.
London, M., & Stumpf, S. A. (1982). Managing careers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
London, M., & Stumpf, S. A. (1986). Individual and organizational career development in
changing times. In D. T. Hall & Associates, Career development in organizations (pp. 21-49).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nevins, A. (1940). John D. Rockefeller
. New York: Scribner.
Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., Rabinowitz, S., Bedeian, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1989).
Work and family variables as mediators of the relationship between wives’ employment and
husbands’ well-being. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 185-201.
Parasuraman, S., & Nachman, S. A. (1987). Correlates of organizational and professional
commitment. Group & Organization Studies, 12, 287-303.
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V (1974). Organizational commitment,
job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology,
59, 603-609.
Rabinowitz, S., & Hall, D. T. (1977). Organizational research in job involvement. Psychological
Bulletin, 84, 265-288.
Randall, D. M. (1987). Commitment and the organization man. Academy of Management
Review, 12, 460-471.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in organizations.
Administrative Review Quarterly, 15, 150-163.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforce-
ment. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609).
Solomon, E. E., Bishop, R. C., & Bresser, R. (1986). Organizational moderators of gender
differences in career development: A facet classification. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
29, 27-41.
Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1984). Managing career systems. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employee’s locus of control.
Psychological Bulletin, 91, 482-497.
Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at
work: Myth or significant problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 438-443.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014

176

Stahl, M. J., McNichols, C. W., & Manby, R. T. (1979). Cosmopolitan-local orientations as

predictors of scientific productivity, organizational productivity, and job satisfaction for

engineers and screen tests. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM26, 39-43.
Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 22, 46-56.
Yukl, G. A., & Latham, G. P. (1978). Interrelationships among employee participation, individual
differences, goal difficulty, goal acceptance, goal instrumentality, and performance. Person-
nel Psychology, 31
, 305-323.

Stephen M. Colarelli is Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Central Michigan

University. He received his Ph.D. from New York University. His research interests are
career development and the organizational psychology of human resource programs.

Ronald C. Bishop is Professor and Chair, Department ofManagemen4 Central Michigan

University. His Ph.D. is from Southern Illinois University-Casbondale in industriall
organizational psychology.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com at NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV on November 26, 2014