Impact of Cultural Individualism and Collectivism on Protean and Boundaryless Career Attitudes and Job Satisfaction

Abstract

Over the past several decades, new career theories have been developed in an attempt to explain the changing nature of work. Careers are now commonly considered to be self-driven and contingent on factors such as personal values and mobility. The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine how identification with cultural individualism and collectivism influences participants’ overall protean and boundaryless career attitudes and overall job satisfaction. The data were collected from 203 working adults in the United States. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine whether identification with certain cultural dimensions was predictive of levels of job satisfaction and adherence to particular career attitudes. Results indicated that several cultural variables within the individualism and collectivism constructs do have moderate predictive value in determining career attitudes and job satisfaction. The findings also supported previous research studies that sought to differentiate between the protean and boundaryless career attitudes.

Keywords

individualism collectivism career job satisfaction protean

The nature of work has shifted away from the corporate career, where the organization itself was designated to be the primary career driver for its employees (Briscoe & Finkelstein, 2009). Various factors such as globalization, organizational downsizing, and technological advancements have spurred on changes to the economy and emerging careers (Parker, 2008). The evolving economy has transformed the corporate, or traditional, career from a static lifelong guarantee with one employer to a dynamic adaptation of the individual in order to sustain employability (Coutinho et al., 2008).

In response to these changes in the nature of work, two prominent career theories emerged: the protean career and the boundaryless career (Walsh et al., 2010). Unlike the corporate career, these theories propose that the individual employee maintains direct control over their career (Briscoe et al., 2005). Several studies have indicated that being vocationally proactive and self-driven leads to greater levels of job satisfaction and perceived career success (Cabrera, 2008; Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Eby et al., 2003; Sargent & Domberger, 2007). The current study further investigates the relationship between career approaches and job satisfaction.

Studies have linked job satisfaction to a multitude of variables such as job performance and organizational commitment (Blau, 2001; Chung-Yan, 2010; Spector, 1985). As the concept of work is continually undergoing a global change, members of society must redefine their own vocational careers. Individuals may be able to successfully adapt to today’s work environment, yet they may continue to struggle with dissatisfaction with their work output. This dissatisfaction has been demonstrated to potentially lead to other issues within their vocational development and their overall psychological welfare (Fouad, 2007).

As the workforce in the United States has also become increasingly more culturally diverse (Fouad & Byars-Winston, 2005), there is a greater need for a research emphasis on the relationship between cultural background and one’s career development (Walsh et al., 2010). To date, limited studies have examined the applicability of career theories to individuals from more collectivistic cultures. Additionally, as the client population of today’s career counselor becomes steadily more diverse, culturally sensitive strategies are warranted. The aim of this study is to gain further understanding on the cultural dimensions of individualism and collectivism and how they influence protean career attitudes, boundaryless career attitudes, and overall job satisfaction. While there is a growing amount of literature on protean and boundaryless career theories, research examining its adherence across multiple cultures in the United States has been limited.

Literature Review

Conceptualizing the modern career

The reshaping of the concept of career has dictated a change in conventional career theory models and has driven the emergence of new career theories (Briscoe & Finkelstein, 2009; Hall, 2004). Two popular theories that have been espoused by the organizational literature are protean career theory (Hall, 1976) and boundaryless career theory (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996). Both theories approach the modern career with their own nuanced perspectives distinct from one another.

Protean career theory

Protean career theory states that individuals are more self-directed and base career decisions on personal values (Hall, 1976). This theory emphasizes career management by the individual as opposed to the organization itself and promotes a career management style that encompasses both a values-driven attitude and a self-directed attitude. The name of this theory is based upon the Greek god, Proteus, who was known for his versatility, flexibility, and adaptability (Briscoe et al., 2006).

Those who are oriented to a protean career mindset tend to hold values in freedom and personal growth. Success is derived from one’s own internal measure and not based on external criteria (Hall & Moss, 1998). Additionally, the emphasis of the career shifts from advancement within a company to self-awareness and adaptation to change. Questions from a traditional career perspective could be “Do I find myself respected by others in this company?” and “What should I do in this organization?” The protean career asks, “Do I respect myself?” and “What would I like to do?” A core tenet of this theory is being self-evaluative while examining one’s career.

Boundaryless career theory

Boundaryless career theory describes people as being more mobile by preemptively creating career opportunities and maintaining professional relationships outside of their companies (Arthur & Rosseau, 1996). Rather than a self-directed attitude, this theory promotes a boundaryless mindset by creating and sustaining professional relationships beyond organizational boundaries (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Sullivan & Arthur, 2006). This theory promotes comfort with pursuing outside professional relationships and a sense of high mobility, or preference for organizational mobility, that can progress across several employers (Briscoe et al., 2006). A driving motive within this theory is self-elasticity while considering one’s career.

Eby et al. (2003) postulated that developing a portfolio of career competencies such as “knowing why, knowing whom, and knowing how” were salient predictors of a successful boundaryless career (p. 690). Knowing why refers to personal motivation and meaning where the person is not relying on the firm’s culture and may hold occupational values independent of the organization itself. Knowing whom relates to professional networking both within and outside the organization. Lastly, knowing how describes career competencies that stretch beyond the requirements of the current job position.

Individualism and collectivism

As the world becomes more globalized, research has directed much more attention to cultural issues (Chung & Mallery, 2000; Robert et al., 2006; Yetim, 2003). One notable difference between cultures is their degree of adherence to individualism or collectivism (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Gudykunst and Matsumoto (1996) described the individualism–collectivism continuum as “the major dimension of cultural variability isolated by theorists across disciplines to explain similarities and differences in behavior” (p. 511).

Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, and Gelfand (1995) developed a research instrument that aimed to measure the constructs of individualism and collectivism, which could be further designated into vertical and horizontal dimensions. Individuals who adhere more closely to the vertical dimension tend to promote achievement, status, hierarchy, and competition. However, those who identify more with the horizontal dimension support notions of equality, value uniqueness without comparison to others, and do not strive to be better than others (Oishi et al., 1998). When the dimensions of individualism–collectivism and horizontal–vertical are integrated, they yield four distinct constructs: horizontal individualism (HI), vertical individualism (VI), horizontal collectivism (HC), and vertical collectivism (VC; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998).

People who identify strongly with HI tend to promote autonomy, self-reliance, and value the freedom to express themselves while simultaneously viewing themselves as equal to other people and are less likely to compare themselves with others. The hallmark of HI is personal autonomy. On the other hand, those who identify with VI, while also independent, also value competition and seek to be the best. They typically try to differentiate themselves from others and strive for dominance through higher statuses. VI’s distinguishing characteristic is personal competition. People who adhere toward HC tend to seek identity with their membership to a group and view themselves as being on equal footing with others. While they acknowledge their interdependence with others and their common goals, they prefer not to relinquish themselves to authority. In other words, HC underscores group association. Lastly, those who adhere toward VC also identify with their cultural group, but they are consigned to an overt hierarchy of the group and are willing to give up personal interests if required by the authority within the group itself. They acknowledge the differences between members and are more accepting of inequality (Komarraju & Cokley, 2008; Triandis, 1995). Above all, VC highlights group conformity.

A greater percentage of the country’s workforce is comprised of racial and ethnic minorities today than ever before (Cui et al., 2015). Work has been described as “a functional aspect of life in that individuals contribute their skills and labor to their cultural societies and the maintenance of their families” (Carter & Cook, 1992, p. 199). One of the most common methods of distinguishing between cultures is determining the degree of individualism and collectivism (Sivadas et al., 2008). Strunk and Chang (1999) define these terms as the following:
In general, collectivism promotes a sense of the self as interdependent. Collectivistic people are motivated by the norms and duties of their collectives, give priority to the goals of the collectives and emphasize their connectedness to members of the collectives. In contrast, individualism promotes a sense of the self as independent. Individualistic people are motivated by their own desires, give priority to their personal goals and use reason to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of associating with others. (p. 665)

The Current Study

The aim of this study was to gain further understanding of the cultural dimensions of individualism and collectivism and how they relate to protean career attitudes, boundaryless career attitudes, and overall job satisfaction. Three questions were addressed in this exploratory study. Is each cultural variable of VI, HI, VC, and HC predictive of the variance in (a) protean career attitudes, (b) boundaryless career attitudes, or (c) overall level of job satisfaction?

The researchers proposed three main hypotheses. First, the self-driven nature of protean career theory seems to be more closely aligned with the values of independence and less with a group mentality existing within collectivism. Thus, VI and HI were hypothesized to contribute significant variance in protean career attitudes, and VC and HC were not hypothesized to contribute significant variance in protean career attitudes. Second, the boundaryless career theory includes organizational mobility and professional relationships that transcend boundaries of the firm, which indicates a greater sense of interdependence with others. On the other hand, the other three cultural variables do not appear to suit the boundaryless model. Hence, HC was expected and hypothesized to contribute significant variance in boundaryless career attitude, while VI, HI, and HC were not. Third, subjective success is uniquely interpreted because personally meaningful work can vary in definition among individuals. The literature indicates that job satisfaction is defined differently depending on one’s cultural upbringing (Fouad & Byars-Winston, 2005; Walsh et al., 2010). Based on that notion, each of the cultural variables (VI, HI, VC, and HC) was hypothesized to contribute significant variance in overall job satisfaction.

Method

Participants

A total of 203 participants completed all of the survey instruments. Due to the variables examined in the study, all individuals must have been employed at least part-time, at least 18 years of age, and were currently residing in the United States at the time of participation. Participants were recruited through online methods such as professional organization listservs and emails to various firms in the United States. Although the study was open to any qualified person in the United States, participant recruitment drew primarily from the West South Central region (Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana) due to proximity and accessibility (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). This study’s sample is considered a convenience sample due to the absence of investigator-generated randomization.

Recruitment of participants who identified with individualism was not projected to be difficult because of the majority culture’s traditional adherence to individualism (Singelis et al., 1995). On the other hand, those who identified more closely with collectivism may have been more challenging to recruit. While collectivistic values can exist within members of the majority culture, participation from traditionally collectivistic cultures could be more representative of collectivism as a whole. Therefore, a diverse set of professional organizations, both national and regional, were contacted, including but not limited to Oklahoma Professional Search, Oklahoma Medical Association, National Hispanic Professional Organization, The National Association of Asian American Professionals, and India Association of North Texas. These organizations provided a pool of professional contacts from diverse career fields such as arts/entertainment (n = 11; 5.4%), education (n = 30; 14.8%), construction (n = 5; 2.5%), finance/insurance (n = 16; 79%), health care (n = 46; 22.7%), manufacturing (n = 30; 14.8%), retail (n = 9; 4.4%), telecommunications (n = 19; 9.4%), and utilities (n = 10; 4.9%), as well as other fields.

Both majority and minority cultures were represented, including 48.8% White (n = 99), 35% Asian or Asian American (n = 71), 4.9% African or African American (n = 10), 8.9% Latino/a (n = 18), and 2.5% Native American (n = 5) racial/ethnic identities. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 74 (mean = 34.86, standard deviation = 10.32). Participants identified as 57.1% female (n = 116) and 42.9% male (n = 87). Career roles included middle/upper management (n = 38; 18.7%), administrative/support staff (n = 43; 21.2%), trained professional (n = 75; 36.9%), skilled laborer (n = 13; 6.4%), and self-employed (n = 16; 7.9%). Most respondents reported working full time (40 or more hours per week; n = 162; 79.8%) and fewer reported working part-time (fewer than 40 hours per week; n = 41; 21.2%). Level of education included 1% no degree (n = 2), 3.9% high school/GED (n = 8), 18.2% some college (n = 37), 8.4% associate’s degree (n = 17), 36% bachelor’s degree (n = 73), 25.1% master’s degree (n = 51), and 7.4% professional/doctoral degree (n = 15). Participants reported their income as less than US$20,000 (n = 35; 17.3%), US$20,000–US$49,999 (n = 86; 42.4%), US$50,000–US$79,000 (n = 50; 24.7%), and over US$80,000 (n = 32; 15.8%).

Measures

Participants were asked to complete a series of scales that assess career theory orientation, job satisfaction, and personal degree of individualism or collectivism.

Demographic Questionnaire

Demographic information was collected from all participants. Items on the demographic form were taken from QuestionPro, an online survey software package that provides Questionnaire templates (QuestionPro, 2011). The form incorporates general demographic questions (e.g., age, gender), cultural background questions (e.g., ethnicity, race), and career questions (e.g., role in industry, annual income). We did not collect information on nation of origin or collectivistic/individualistic culture.

Protean Career Attitudes Scale (PCAS)

The PCAS is designed to assess one’s adherence toward protean career theory (Briscoe et al., 2006). The scale consists of 14 items that determine a protean career attitude by combining two subscales: the Self-Directed Career Management Scale (SDCMS) and the Values-Driven Scale (VDS). Each item utilizes a Likert-type scale in which answers range from 1 (to little or no extent) to 5 (to a great extent). A high combined score denotes a greater protean attitude. A high score also suggests the adoption of protean attitudes in contrast to a traditional career attitude, which emphasizes internal organizational advancement, lower mobility, and places value on authoritative power rather than personal growth. PCAS subscales correlated highly with a measure of proactive personality, providing evidence of convergent validity (Briscoe et al., 2006). Briscoe et al. (2006) found Cronbach’s α scores for the PCAS subscales SDCMS and VDS were .75 and .70, respectively. The PCAS in this study had a final overall Cronbach’s α score of .88. SDCMS and VDS had Cronbach’s α scores of .85 and .73, respectively.

Boundaryless Career Attitudes Scale (BCAS)

The BCAS, also authored by Briscoe et al. (2006), measures one’s boundaryless attitude. The scale includes 13 items split among two subscales: 8 items in the Boundaryless Mindset Scale (BMS) and 5 items in the Organizational Mobility Preference Scale (OMPS). Like the PCAS, items are answered with a Likert-type scale where answers can range from 1 (to little or no extent) to 5 (to a great extent). High total scores suggest a greater boundaryless attitude. A high score also suggests the adoption of boundaryless attitudes in contrast to a traditional career attitude, which emphasizes organization-specific skill development, tenure-based milestones, and emphasis on job security in exchange for loyalty. BCAS subscales correlated highly with a measure of proactive personality, providing evidence of convergent validity (Briscoe et al., 2006). Briscoe et al. (2006) found Cronbach’s α scores for the BCAS subscales BMS and Organizational Mobility Scale (OMS) were .87 and .74, respecively. In this study, the BCAS had a final overall Cronbach’s α score of .82. The two subscales, BMS and the OMS, had Cronbach’s α scores of .90 and .80, respectively.

Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS)

The JSS is a 36-item job satisfaction measure that was developed to assess the degree of satisfaction of those who worked in the social service sector (Spector, 1985). However, the scale has been implemented in other vocational backgrounds as well (Van Saane et al., 2003). The scale utilizes a 6-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 (disagree very much) to 6 (agree very much). A high score on the scale suggests participant job satisfaction. The JSS had a final overall Cronbach’s α score of .93. Van Saane et al. (2003) reported from a sample size of 172 that the JSS had an internal consistency of .91 and test–retest score of .71. Additionally, the study established that convergent validity, discriminant validity, and content validity were all met by measuring the JSS with six other established instruments, including the Job in General Scale, the McCloskey/Mueller Satisfaction Scale, and the Measure of Job Satisfaction.

Individualism–Collectivism Scale (INDCOL)

Individualism and collectivism were measured using the INDCOL (Singelis et al., 1995). The instrument consists of 32 items that measure the four cultural variables, which are HI, HC, VI, and VC. Participants rate items on a Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The final overall scale was found to be reliable (α = .85). The 32-item instrument produced a total of four scores that yielded acceptable Cronbach’s αs: HI (α = .77), HC (α = .74), VI (α = .77), and VC (α = .76). Triandis and Gelfand (1998) demonstrated various types of validity by measuring each of the four variables through four separate studies. Notably, they correlated the four variables with other instruments in the literature such as the Interdependent Construal Scale and the Collective Identity Scale.

Results

Because the purpose of the study was to examine career attitudes and job satisfaction in their entirety, the researchers examined the predictive value of cultural dimensions on the variance of total scores of the instruments. Consistent with previous research (Briscoe et al., 2006), the BCAS’s subscales, Boundaryless Mindset and Organizational Mobility, appeared to be independent constructs as there was no statistically significant correlation between the two subscales. Therefore, the subscales were treated as separate variables, and regressions were calculated with each subscale independently. In turn, this altered the boundaryless research question into two research questions: Do the cultural variables predict variance in adherence to (a) boundaryless mindset and (b) organizational mobility?

Four linear regressions were run to assess the relationship between the predictor variables of cultural dimensions with the dependent variables of protean career attitude, boundaryless mindset, organizational mobility, and job satisfaction. A 95% confidence interval was used to assess for statistical significance (p < .05) in all analyses. All correlational and multiple regression analyses were conducted in SPSS Version 16.0. Our data met the assumptions for multivariate analysis, and the correlations were within acceptable ranges as noted by Tabachnick and Fidell (2013). See Table 1.

Table 1.
Descriptive Statistics and Pearson’s Correlational Coefficients.

Variable Mean SD Variance HI HC VI VC PCAS BCAS JSS

HI 36.29 5.47 29.94 1.00

HC 35.82 5.50 30.27 0.47** 1.00

VI 27.90 6.55 42.86 0.11 0.15* 1.00

VC 30.10 6.46 41.74 0.16* 0.54 0.32 1.00

PCAS 51.99 8.82 77.71 0.50 0.23 0.12 −0.05 1.00

BCAS 0.32 0.38 0.17* 0.27 0.49 1.00

BMS 29.67 6.29 39.59

OMS 15.04 4.30 18.46

JSS 140.94 13.88 192.76 0.12 0.14 0.03 −0.06 0.17* 0.08 1.00

Note. SD = standard deviation; HI = horizontal individualism; HC = horizontal collectivism; VI = vertical individualism; VC = vertical collectivism; PCAS = Protean Career Attitudes Scale; BCAS = Boundary Career Attitudes Scale; BMS = Boundaryless Mindset subscale; OMS = Organizational Mobility subscale; JSS = Job Satisfaction Survey.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Hypothesis 1 was partially met. The first regression measured the predictability of individualism–collectivism to the variance in protean career attitude. The coefficient of determination (R²) was found to be .285; thus, the portion of variance explained in PCAS scores was 28.5%. Of the four individualism–collectivism variables, HI and VC were significant with β weights of .46 (p < .001) and −.23 (p < .01), respectively. Hypothesis 2 was partially met. The second and third regressions measured the predictability of individualism–collectivism to variance in boundaryless career attitudes. Unlike the PCAS, the subscales of the BCAS were statistically distinct enough that separate regression analyses were conducted on each subscale. For the Boundaryless Mindset (BM) subscale, the coefficient of determination (R²) was found to be .13 or 13% of the portion of variance explained in BM scores. Two of the independent variables, HI and HC, were statistically significant. Their β weights were .206 (p < .01) and .102 (p < .01), respectively. The other subscale of the BCAS, Organizational Mobility (OM), had a coefficient of determination (R²) at .12, thus explaining 12% of variance in OM scores. Of the four independent variables, only VC was found to be significant at .301 (p < .000). Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. The final regression measured the predictability of individualism–collectivism on variance in overall job satisfaction. The coefficient of determination (R²) was .051 or 5.1% of the variance in job satisfaction scores. Two of the independent variables were significant: HC and VC. HC had a β weight of .23 (p < .05), and VC had a β weight of −.21 (p < .05). See Table 2.

Table 2.
Regression Coefficients.

Predictors B Standard Error β t

Protean Career Attitudes Scale (p < .05)

HI .75 .11 .46 6.75

HC .19 .13 .12 1.50

VI .16 .09 .12 1.90

VC −.31 .10 −.23 −3.00*

BCAS—Boundaryless Mindset (p < .05)

HI .24 .09 .21 2.72

HC .25 .10 .22 2.46*

VI .10 .07 .10 1.45

VC −.09 .08 −.09 −1.09

BCAS—Organizational Mobility (p < .05)

HI .03 .06 .03 0.43

HC .05 .07 .06 0.70

VI .00 .05 .00 −0.01

VC .20 .06 .03 3.58

Job Satisfaction Scale (p < .05)

HI .09 .21 .03 0.40

HC .57 .25 .23 2.27

VI .15 .17 .07 0.89

VC −.45 .20 −.21 −2.19*

Note. HI = horizontal individualism; HC = horizontal collectivism; VI = vertical individualism; VC = vertical collectivism; BCAS = Boundary Career Attitudes Scale.

Discussion

We found that HI positively predicted, and VC negatively predicted, variance in protean career attitudes. HI and HC positively predicted variance in the Boundaryless Mindset subscale, and VC positively predicted variance in the Organizational Mobility subscale of the BCAS. HC and VC positively predicted variance in levels of job satisfaction.

Protean Career

HI was the only significant positive predictor of the variance in protean career attitudes. A possible explanation for this result could be the aspect of autonomy that rests within the protean mindset (Briscoe et al., 2005). HI is defined by the combination of equality and a form of independence (Triandis, 1995). This cultural perspective may tap into core protean values of self-directed career guidance, psychological success (e.g., personally meaningful work instead of simply a paycheck), and a higher priority of the self instead of a collective group. The lack of direct competitiveness bolstered in the HI dimension attitude seems to directly translate into the protean mindset.

VC was a significant negative predictor of the variance in protean attitude. In other words, the more people identify with VC, the less they will adhere to the protean career attitude. This finding, although not originally hypothesized, does not appear to be completely unexpected. The combination of hierarchical dominance within a group membership is inherently opposite of protean characteristics. Sivadas et al. (2008) listed India as an example of VC due to its traditional caste system. Members of each caste are expected to perform within the confines of their caste and maintain harmony as a collective societal group, even at the expense of individual interests. For example, personal sacrifice found in VC is contrasting to the protean attitude of independence. When examining traits of VC such as sacrificing personal interests for the identified group’s well-being, the notion that VC can be significantly antithetical to the protean career is not far-fetched.

HC was not a significant indicator of a protean attitude. HC suggests that there is a certain level of equality among members of a group while retaining a collective group mentality, which could detract from one’s full adherence to the overall protean career. VI did not significantly predict a protean attitude. Although VI is considered an individualistic variable, people who uphold this particular dimension tend to embrace an organizational hierarchy that can potentially conflict with ideas of personal career management outside of the organization.

Boundaryless Career

Results determined that the two horizontal cultural variables, HI and HC, significantly and positively predicted a boundaryless mindset. HC was initially expected to be a significant predictor because of the perceived emphasis on interdependence within the boundaryless career mindset. The sense of group mentality found in HC may be a contributing factor to a boundaryless mindset. This particular finding suggests that the perception of “equal footing” found within the horizontal perspective is a significant determinant for boundaryless mindset traits such as developing skills that transcend one particular job and finding personally meaningful work as a measurement of success (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996).

While HC was confirmed to be a significant predictor of boundaryless career mindset, HI was an unexpected significant predictor. The individualism component of HI was originally hypothesized to not be a significant indicator of the boundaryless mindset due to its emphasis on independence. However, the significance of HI on boundaryless mindset could be attributed to the individual career management style of the boundaryless career mindset. For example, by developing oneself independently, one can collaborate with others and utilize that uniqueness as a benefit in working with others both inside and outside an organization.

Neither VI nor VC was found to be a significant predictor of boundaryless mindset. This appears to suggest that the competitiveness component found within the vertical dimensions is a key factor in detracting from a boundaryless career mindset. Regarding organizational mobility, we hypothesized that HC would be the sole predictor of variance in organizational mobility and the other three cultural dimensions would not yield significance. The regression did produce only one predictor; however, the significant predictor was VC and not HC. Notably, HC was not a significant predictor. One possible explanation is that the notion in HC of a collaborative mindset could be geared more toward the boundaryless mindset component of an overall boundaryless attitude.

Upon first glance, this significance of VC as a predictor of organizational mobility may seem contradictory as VC upholds values of group hierarchy and embracing one’s role within this group. However, organizational mobility is defined by promoting flexibility both within and outside of the organization. Members of a group perform various tasks imposed by the authoritative power or expectation over the members. Thus, these tasks may change and demand a certain degree of flexibility of the group’s members to adjust accordingly. Perhaps a person who upholds organizational mobility can be flexible or mobile enough to switch tasks for the sake of the group. This could be manifested as being flexible enough to collaborate with others even at the expense of the individual’s personal gain. While this could potentially be a viable explanation, there are likely other reasons that can explain this result. Continued research can shed new light on the relationship between VC and organizational mobility and issues such as organizational flexibility, duty, and self-sacrifice.

Job Satisfaction

The third research question dealt with the predictive power of the cultural dimensions on overall job satisfaction. Of the four cultural variables, HC and VC were significant predictors of job satisfaction. First, HC was determined to be a positive predictor of variance in overall job satisfaction. This finding suggests that a sense of equality within a group found in HC is a significant indicator of overall job satisfaction.

On the other hand, VC was a negative predictor of job satisfaction. The issue of self-sacrifice may counter the notion of personal satisfaction. Although there is likely a sense of duty in all types of jobs across the career spectrum, relinquishing control and submitting to an external workplace authority within the dominant culture may require a balance through a sense of personal compensation. For example, if individuals were increasingly asked by their firms to sacrifice personal gains and interests without being offered anything in return, they might become more dissatisfied in their work. However, this result may need to be cross-examined in future studies within working populations that bear a dominant adherence to VC.

HI and VI were not significant predictors of job satisfaction. However, as mentioned in the literature, autonomy and a self-driven career have been linked to perceived success and satisfaction (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; De Vos & Soens, 2008; Sargent & Domberger, 2007). One possible explanation of this finding is that because several of the JSS’s subscales assess satisfaction through working with others in an organization as opposed to self-managing entrepreneurial work, the instrument may slant toward rating higher levels of job satisfaction for those who are employed through an organization.

Implications for Career Development and Counseling

The foundation that the protean and boundaryless career literature rests upon states that these theories stem from changes within societal and organizational structures (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Briscoe et al., 2006; Hall, 1976). In response to these often unsettling changes, individuals adapt by becoming more self-reliant to ensure their own futures (Mazzetti et al., 2018). Thus, the more people become self-directed in managing their careers and finding self-fulfilling work, the greater the likelihood that they adhere to one or more modern career theories.

The results of this study seem to indicate that certain types of cultural perspectives along the individualism/collectivism and vertical/horizontal axes may be more apt to identify with a protean or boundaryless career. For example, people who identified highly with HI were more likely to embrace a protean career while those who identified highly with VC were most likely not to. This appears to suggest that retaining VC characteristics could make one less prepared for future career trends such as increased global competition. Although VI would appear to be a moderately effective cultural perspective in preparing for either modern career theory, this study’s findings did not indicate so. Perhaps steadily climbing up the “corporate ladder” still seems to fit a traditional career model. Future studies may need to examine what role hierarchical acknowledgment factors into a protean or boundaryless career.

Regarding the contention that protean and boundaryless career theories are synonymous, the findings argue for distinct differences. A boundaryless mindset may be similar to the protean career model, but perhaps the defining difference between the two theories is the notion of organizational mobility. Even though a protean career could lead to a more mobile career, inter- and intraorganizational mobility is more characteristic of a boundaryless career. Future studies could explore any potential differences between mobility within an organization (e.g., moving departments) and moving between firms themselves.

Lastly, variance in job satisfaction was only predicted by HC and VC. If people are dissatisfied with their work, this could potentially lead to a negative impact in other areas of their lives such as financial stability, mental health, and family dynamics (Fouad, 2007). Therefore, the findings that VC is negatively related to job satisfaction raise a concern that people endorsing higher levels of VC might be more likely to experience higher levels of overall job dissatisfaction. A poor sense of job satisfaction can factor into both acute and chronic mental and physical health issues (Faragher et al., 2005). Thus, vocational counseling or other types of mental health care may be beneficial for those who approach their careers from that perspective.

Limitations

The current study has several inherent limitations. First, the study’s results come from a convenience sample. The lack of randomization may affect the study’s generalizability to a broader population. Second, the data were based on participants’ self-report. The degree of self-report inaccuracy may be contingent on factors outside of the researcher’s control. Third, the present study did not examine participants who would otherwise claim multiethnic backgrounds. As globalization continues, it could be likely that a greater amount of people would classify themselves not as a singular race/ethnicity but a myriad of several heritages. Fourth, specific geographic areas were not specifically examined. Instead, the sample hailed from various states in the United States, each with its own set of subcultural norms and expectations. Depending on the region, these norms could vary in influencing people’s career trajectories. Fifth, there is a limitation regarding the absence of assessing cultural atmospheres within the employing institutions. For example, if one’s organization promotes group effort, a person who identifies strongly with individualism could also experience a decrease of satisfaction while working in that environment. Finally, approximately 20% of the participants indicated that they currently held a part-time job. The approach to a part-time job may not be identical to one’s approach to a lifelong career.

Future Research

Future areas of research should continue to identify characteristics of individuals who are more apt to embrace protean or boundaryless career theories as well as the relationship between cultural background, career attitudes, and job satisfaction. Although demographic data were gathered, variables such as age, gender, and career field were not examined extensively. Also, future studies can examine specific subscales of job satisfaction to gain a clearer picture of how small business owners or self-employed individuals determine their job satisfaction. By focusing on specific career fields or subscales of the Job Satisfaction Scale, issues such as suppression variables may be better mitigated. This study supported the two-factor model of the boundaryless career in including both psychological (boundaryless mindset) and physical mobility (organizational mobility; Sullivan & Arthur, 2006). Additional research can be conducted to further examine the two-factor model of the protean career and the nine-factor model of job satisfaction.

Conclusion

As demonstrated, cultural perspectives are related to, and predict the variance in, job satisfaction and adaptation to a changing work environment. This study shows the importance of vocational counselors and other mental health care professionals to exhibit cultural awareness when providing psychological and vocational assistance to today’s worker. Cultural backgrounds have been demonstrated to directly relate to the embracing of career modernization and satisfaction. Since a career (or lack thereof) can be a crucial part of one’s identity, job satisfaction or career distress can perpetuate a host of other mental health issues. In conclusion, career counselors and other mental health care providers should educate themselves about the notions of individualism and collectivism and continuously update and maintain their cultural competence and responsiveness in working with an increasingly diverse client population.

Variable	Mean	SD	Variance	HI	HC	VI	VC	PCAS	BCAS	JSS
HI	36.29	5.47	29.94	1.00
HC	35.82	5.50	30.27	0.47**	1.00
VI	27.90	6.55	42.86	0.11	0.15*	1.00
VC	30.10	6.46	41.74	0.16*	0.54**	0.32**	1.00
PCAS	51.99	8.82	77.71	0.50**	0.23**	0.12	−0.05	1.00
BCAS				0.32**	0.38**	0.17*	0.27**	0.49**	1.00
BMS	29.67	6.29	39.59
OMS	15.04	4.30	18.46
JSS	140.94	13.88	192.76	0.12	0.14	0.03	−0.06	0.17*	0.08	1.00

Predictors	B	Standard Error	β	t
Protean Career Attitudes Scale (*p < .05)
HI	.75	.11	.46	6.75*
HC	.19	.13	.12	1.50
VI	.16	.09	.12	1.90
VC	−.31	.10	−.23	−3.00*
BCAS—Boundaryless Mindset (*p < .05)
HI	.24	.09	.21	2.72*
HC	.25	.10	.22	2.46*
VI	.10	.07	.10	1.45
VC	−.09	.08	−.09	−1.09
BCAS—Organizational Mobility (*p < .05)
HI	.03	.06	.03	0.43
HC	.05	.07	.06	0.70
VI	.00	.05	.00	−0.01
VC	.20	.06	.03	3.58*
Job Satisfaction Scale (*p < .05)
HI	.09	.21	.03	0.40
HC	.57	.25	.23	2.27*
VI	.15	.17	.07	0.89
VC	−.45	.20	−.21	−2.19*

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Julie M. Koch

References

Arthur

M. B.

Rousseau

D. M.

(Eds.). (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era. Oxford University Press.

Blau

(2001). On assessing the construct validity of two multidimensional constructs: Occupational commitment and occupational entrenchment. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(00)00052-8

Briscoe

J. P.

Finkelstein

L. M.

(2009). The “new career” and organizational commitment: Do boundaryless and protean attitudes make a difference? Career Development International, 14, 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430910966424

Briscoe

J. P.

Hall

D. T.

Demuth

R. L. F.

(2006). Protean and boundaryless careers: An empirical exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.09.003

Briscoe

J. P.

Waters

L. E.

Hall

D. T.

(2005, August). A protean approach to unemployment: Results of a qualitative study [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, HI, United States.

Cabrera

E. F.

(2008). Protean organizations, reshaping work and careers to retain female talent. Career Development International, 14, 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430910950773

Carter

R. T.

Cook

D. A.

(1992). A culturally relevant perspective for understanding the career paths of visible racial/ethnic group people. In Lea

H. D.

Leibowitz

Z. B.

(Eds.), Adult career development (pp. 192–217). National Career Development Association.

Chung

Mallery

(2000). Social comparison, individualism-collectivism, and self-esteem in China and the United States. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, and Social, 18, 340–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-999-1008-0

Chung-Yan

G. A.

(2010). The nonlinear effects of job complexity and autonomy on job satisfaction, turnover, and psychology well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019823

10.

Cooper-Hakim

Viswesvaran

(2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/033-2909.131.2.241

11.

Coutinho

M. T.

Dam

U. C.

Blustein

D. L.

(2008). The psychology of working and globalization: A new perspective for a new era. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 8, 5–18.

12.

Cui

Velasquez

(2015). Workforce diversity and religiosity. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(4), 743–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1984-8

13.

De Vos

Soens

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

14.

Eby

L. T.

Butts

Lockwood

(2003). Predictors of success in the era of the boundaryless career. Journal of Management, 33, 350–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.214

15.

Faragher

E. B.

Cass

Cooper

C. L.

(2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and health: A meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2002.006734

16.

Fouad

N. A.

(2007). Work and vocational psychology: Theory, research, and applications. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 543–564. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085713

17.

Fouad

N. A.

Byars-Winston

A. M.

(2005). Cultural context of career choice: Meta-analysis of race/ethnicity differences. The Career Development Quarterly, 53, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045-2005.tb00992.x

18.

Gudykunst

Matsumoto

(1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00377.x

19.

Hall

D. T.

(1976). Careers in organizations. Scott Foresman.

20.

Hall

D. T.

(2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vb.2003.10.006

21.

Hall

D. T.

Moss

J. E.

(1998). The new protean career contract: Helping organizations and employees adapt. Organizational Dynamics, 26(3), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(98)90012-2

22.

Komarraju

Cokley

K. O.

(2008). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism-collectivism: A comparison of African Americans and European Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 336–343. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/1099-9809.14.4.336

23.

Mazzetti

Lancioni

Derous

Guglielmi

(2018). Tackling job insecurity: Can a boundaryless career orientation boost job crafting strategies and career competencies? Psicologia Sociale, 13(2), 129–146.

24.

Oishi

Schimmack

Diener

Suh

E. M.

(1998). The measurements of values and individualism-collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 117–1189. https://doi.org/org/10.1177/01461672982411005

25.

Parker

(2008). Science and technology in undergraduate students’ worldview, shaped by globalization: The Chilean case. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 7, 69–90. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1163/156914907X253215

26.

QuestionPro Survey Software. (2011). Demographic Questionnaire. http://www.questionpro.com/akira/showSurveyLibrary.do?surveyID=183105

27.

Robert

Lee

W. C.

Chan

K.-Y.

(2006). An empirical analysis of measurement equivalence with the INDCOL measure of individualism and collectivism: Implications for valid cross-cultural inference. Personnel Psychology, 59, 65–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00804.x

28.

Sargent

L. D.

Domberger

S. R.

(2007). Exploring the development of protean career orientation: Values and image violations. Career Development International, 12, 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430710822010

29.

Singelis

T. M.

Triandis

H. C.

Bhawuk

Gelfand

M. J.

(1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939719502900302

30.

Sivadas

Bruvold

N. T.

Nelson

M. R.

(2008). A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment. Journal of Business Research, 61, 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.016

31.

Spector

P. E.

(1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00929796

32.

Strunk

D. R.

Chang

E. C.

(1999). Distinguishing between fundamental dimensions of individualism-collectivism: Relations to sociopolitical attitudes and beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 665–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00258-X

33.

Sullivan

S. E.

Arthur

M. B.

(2006). The evolution of the boundaryless career concept: Examining physical and psychological mobility. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.09.001

34.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.

35.

Triandis

H. C.

(1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westview Press.

36.

Triandis

H. C.

Gelfand

M. J.

(1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118

37.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). U.S. Census regions and divisions. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(96)90045-8

38.

Van Saane

Sluiter

J. K.

Verbeek

J. H. A. M.

Frings-Dresen

M. H. W.

(2003). Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction—A systematic review. Occupational Medicine, 53, 191–200.

39.

Walsh

W. B.

Whiston

Hardin

E. E.

Hartung

P. J.

Savickas

M. L.

Fouad

N. A.

(2010). The next big questions in vocational psychology [Symposium]. Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association Convention, San Diego, CA, United States.

40.

Yetim

(2003). The impacts of individualism/collectivism, self-esteem, and feeling of mastery on life satisfaction among the Turkish university students and academicians. Social Indicators Research, 61, 297–317. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021911504113