Validation of the Job-Hopping Motives Scale

Abstract

Job-hopping is the practice of making frequent voluntary job changes. Integrating theory and research from career and organizational turnover research, two distinct motives for job-hopping were proposed. The escape motive describes frequently changing jobs to escape disliked work environments, whereas the advancement motive describes frequently changing jobs as a means of career advancement. A self-report measure of job-hopping motives was developed and validated using responses from 221 students and 1,528 adults. Factor analysis showed that the motives are distinct but moderately related. The escape motive was associated with negative reactivity (impulsivity, negative affect) and script-based turnover decisions. The advancement motive was associated with positive proactivity (persistence, growth need strength), and protean, boundaryless, and kaleidoscope career theory components. Both motives were associated with organizational withdrawal, quick turnover decisions, and increased turnover. Job-hopping motives predicted historic job change rate over and above demographic, career, and organizational turnover variables.

Keywords

job-hopping mobility hobo syndrome careers turnover

Job-hopping—frequent movement from job to job—has emerged as a highly important workplace trend. Fortune, Forbes, Fast Company, Entrepreneur, CNN Money, CNBC, New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times have all run articles on job-hopping within the past 3 years, including seven articles in the Wall Street Journal since 2014. In spite of vast media speculation about the causes, relatively little is known about the motives that underlie people’s decisions to frequently change jobs. Relevant research and theory on this topic are scattered across multiple academic domains. Further, existing self-report measures of related constructs (e.g., intent to quit one’s job, career orientation) provide few insights about the nature of job-hopping. In this article, we propose a framework of job-hopping motives based on an integration of career and organizational turnover research. We then develop a self-report measure of these motives and present evidence of the measure’s validity.

Job-Hopping Motives

Adopting language from Maertz and Griffeth (2004), we refer to the causes of job-hopping behavior as motives and subsequently attempted to measure those motives. There are two broad scholarly perspectives on job-hopping, emerging from two interrelated academic disciplines. The first perspective on job-hopping can be described as advancement and emerges from the career perspective. Career scholars have long noted that career enhancement can motivate a person to change jobs (e.g., Hall, 1976). A lack of internal promotion systems, increased external hiring, and the fear of layoffs have all pushed workers to actively manage their careers by moving from organization to organization (Cappelli, 2008; Hall, 2004). Accounts of this motive describe an increase in workers’ interorganizational mobility over the past few decades (e.g., Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Cappelli, 2008). This perspective suggests that job-hopping reflects qualities such as personal drive, initiative, and ambition. We have labeled this motive the advancement motive because it describes job-hoppers’ desire to frequently change jobs as a means of career advancement.

The second job-hopping motive can be described as escape and emerges from the organizational turnover perspective. Industrial psychologist Edwin Ghiselli (1974) described job-hopping in terms of the “hobo syndrome,” a psychological property held by workers who frequently quit their jobs (also see Woo, 2011). He described these workers as impulsive and unpredictable. Going back at least as far as Mobley (1977), there was an awareness that some workers voluntarily quit rather impulsively and quickly, bypassing steps in the traditional quitting process, indicating that some workers do not follow a thoughtful step-by-step decision process when quitting. The turnover perspective suggests that job-hopping reflects qualities such as impulsivity (Mobley, 1977), anxiety (Jennings, 1970), a lack of fortitude or persistence (e.g., Ghiselli, 1974; Kramer, 1974), or a lack of moral force (Maertz & Griffeth, 2004). We have labeled this motive the escape motive because it involves a job-hopper’s desire to frequently change jobs to immediately escape disliked work environments.

The Present Study

Suspecting that there was merit to both of these perspectives, we developed a self-report measure of job-hopping motives and examined relations between these motives and worker dispositions, organizational withdrawal, work histories, career attitudes, and voluntary turnover decisions. In so doing, we were guided by the six research questions described below.

Our first question was whether or not job-hopping motives were truly distinct from one another. It is unclear whether scholarly descriptions of job-hopping referred to the same set of workers. For example, Ghiselli’s (1974) hobos and Hall’s (2004) protean workers could be a single group of job-hoppers viewed from very different perspectives. Alternately, these descriptions could refer to separate subsets of job-hoppers, some being escape motivated, and some being advancement motivated. Further, we were unsure if workers completing a self-report measure would see a distinction between escape and advancement job-hopping.

Research Question 1: Do job-hopping motives represent distinct constructs?

We next wondered whether workers endorsing each motive would exhibit tendencies that supported predictions emerging from the career and organizational turnover perspectives. For example, would the escape motive be associated with impulsivity and a lack of persistence as suggested by turnover scholars (e, g., Ghiselli, 1974; Mobley, 1977)? Would the advancement motive be associated with internal motivation and a desire for growth as suggested by career scholars (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Hall, 2004)? We selected a number of dispositional variables (see Table 1) that should help to distinguish the escape and advancement motives. We expected the escape motive to relate to impulsivity, negative affect, a lack of persistence, and external locus of control. In contrast, we expected the advancement motive to relate to increased persistence, growth need strength, and internal locus of control.

Research Question 2: Do job-hopping motives relate differently to dispositional variables to suggest the different “types” of job-hoppers described by the turnover and career perspectives?

Table 1.

Study Variables, Citations, and Correlations with Escape and Advancement Job-Hopping Motives.

Sample^a	Construct/Variable	Citation	Job-Hopping Motives
Sample^a	Construct/Variable	Citation	Escape r	Advancement r
Dispositional constructs
2	Impulsivity	Spinella (2007)	.19**	−.21**
2	Persistence	International Personality Item Pool	−.16*	.26**
2	Trait negative affect	Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988)	.13*	−.10
2	Growth need strength	Hackman and Oldham (1975)	−.06	.17**
2	Internal work locus of control	Spector (1988)	−.11	.32**
Withdrawal constructs
3,5	Organizational commitment (broad construct)	Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979)	.06	.00
2	Normative organizational commitment	Allen and Meyer (1990)	−.29**	−.46**
3	Turnover cognitions	Mowday, Koberg, and MacArthur (1984)	.34**	.25**
5	Job involvement	Lodahl and Kejner (1965)	−.19**	−.08
4	Intent to quit current job	Single yes/no item: Do you plan on quitting in the future?	.17**	.16**
4	Expected length of tenure for future jobs	Open-ended item: How long do you usually stay with one job?	−.09*	−.09*
Career constructs
2	Career self-efficacy	Betz, Klein, and Taylor (1996)	−.21**	.02
3	Job search intensity	Kopelman, Rovenpor, and Milsap (1992)	.38**	.32**
5	Protean self-directed career management	Briscoe, Hall, and Frautschy DeMuth (2006)	.05	.33**
5	Protean career values	Briscoe et al., (2006)	.15*	.34**
5	Boundaryless mindset	Briscoe et al., (2006)	.02	.21**
5	Boundaryless organizational mobility preference	Briscoe et al., (2006)	.12*	.09
5	Kaleidoscope career challenge	Sullivan, Forret, Carraher, and Mainiero (2009)	.00	.19**
Turnover constructs^b
4,5	Presence of a shock	Created by authors	−.02	−.02
4,5	Presence of a script	Created by authors	.15**	−.01
4,5	Presence of image violation	Created by authors	−.03	.08**
4,5	Job satisfaction	Created by authors	.01	−.03
4,5	Searched for alternatives before quitting	Created by authors	.02	.08**
4,5	Had a likely job offer	Created by authors	.08**	.09**
4,5	Time taken to make turnover decision	Created by authors	−.09**	−.08**
Work history variables
2,3,5	Tenure at current job (log^c)		.01	−.05
2,3,5	Number jobs during past year		.01	−.07
2,3,5	Number jobs during past 5 years		.06	.04
3,4,5	Number of jobs held in lifetime (log^c)		−.05	.10**
4	Number of jobs voluntarily quit in life		.08*	.10**
4	Proportion of jobs voluntarily quit	Number of jobs voluntarily quit divided by the number of jobs held during life	.11**	.09*
3,4,5	Annual job change rate	Number of jobs held in life divided by (age 17), with 17 representing approximate nonworking years	.00	.13**
Demographic and work-related variables
2,3,4,5	Age		−.04	−.06*
2,3,4,5	Sex = male		.15**	.00
3,5	Education level		.12**	.07
2,3,4	Income (log^c)		.09**	.03
2,3,5	Organizational level	Item: Imagine that there are five levels in your current organization, with 5 being highest and 1 being lowest. What is your level?	.16**	.15**

^aVariables collected with each sample vary; when multiple studies are listed, data were combined to calculate r and p values. ^bParticipants described their most recent voluntary turnover experience. High values indicate that the component played an influential role in participants’ turnover decision. ^cSkewed distribution required log transformation to normalize.

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

Although the career development and turnover perspectives point to distinct motives, job-hoppers of both types probably share a core set of similarities having to do with organizational withdrawal and commitment. Regardless of the reason job-hoppers are compelled to frequently change jobs, they should be fairly detached from their current job. We assessed a number of withdrawal variables (see Table 1), expecting that both motives would relate to decreased loyalty toward employers (e.g., low normative commitment) and increased thoughts and intentions to quit one’s current job.

Research Question 3: How do job-hopping motives relate to withdrawal constructs?

Three modern career theories may relate to job-hopping motives. The first is the protean career, which emphasizes how workers rather than organizations can guide careers (Hall, 1976). This includes a mental component whereby workers consider their personal values when evaluating their success, and a more action-oriented component whereby workers take personal responsibility for managing their careers (Briscoe, Hall, & Frautschy DeMuth, 2006). Second, the boundaryless career is one in which workers navigate careers beyond traditional organizational boundaries (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996). Similar to the protean career, the boundaryless career involves both a mental component, called the boundaryless mindset, and an action-oriented career management component called organizational mobility preference (Briscoe & Hall, 2006). Finally, the kaleidoscope career is one in which success is defined more broadly than has traditionally been the case, including factors termed authenticity, balance, and challenge (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005). We evaluated the mental and physical components of the protean and boundaryless careers, and the challenge component of the kaleidoscope career. We expected that the ambitious self-directed career values espoused by these career theories would relate to the advancement motive but not the escape motive.

Research Question 4: How do job-hopping motives integrate with popular career concepts?

Job-hopping motives may also influence the way that people decide to exit organizations. To evaluate this possibility, we compared job-hopping motives to components from the popular unfolding model of voluntary organizational turnover (Lee & Mitchell, 1994; Lee, Mitchell, Holtom, McDaniel, & Hill, 1999). The unfolding model is comprised of several steps including shock, script usage, image violation, job satisfaction, searching for alternative jobs, and the presence of a likely job offer. Different types of quitting involve different model components (Lee et al., 1999). We expected that both job-hopping motives would relate to the script component of the model, which seems to capture the quick type of quitting associated with job-hopping per the turnover perspective. Because the advancement motive embodies proactive changes to another job, we expected that this motive would be more highly related than escape to job search and having another job offer prior to quitting.

Research Question 5: How do job-hopping motives integrate with popular turnover concepts?

Finally, we evaluated the degree to which job-hopping motives were related to people’s work histories. Job-hopping behaviors would be indicated by an increased number of jobs, an increased number of voluntary quits, and holding jobs for a relatively short period of time. If job-hopping motives had led to job-hopping behaviors that should be evident through relations with these behavioral variables.

Research Question 6: Are job-hopping motives related to work history?

Method

Participants

We evaluated the job-hopping motives of 221 university students and 1,528 adult residents of the United States. To foster generalizability of findings, we sought access to workers that were diverse in terms of organizational membership, work history, occupation, and socioeconomic status using online sampling (Casler, Bickel, & Hackett, 2013; Landers & Behrend, 2015). We used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and Syracuse University’s Study Response Project to connect with participants; sample details and demographics are in Table 2. The vast majority of the participants were employed, though we also sought input from people who were between jobs, depending on the questions posed to a particular sample. To ensure high data quality, we assessed possible common method bias, careless responding, and response biases; this is described in the results.

Table 2.

Sample Descriptions and Corresponding Demographic and Employment Details.

Sample	Source	Primary Purpose	N	Demographics	Employment
1	Undergraduate university students	Scale development and exploratory factor analysis	221	Age: M = 20, SD = 3 Sex: 62% female	Employment status: 64% currently employed All participants had held at least one job
2	Mechanical Turk	Relations with dispositional variables	227	Age: M = 32, SD = 10 Sex: 41% female Race: 56% White	Employment status: 100% currently employed (63% of which were full time) Largest employment sectors were healthcare and education Tenure (current job): M = 3.8 years, SD = 4.9 Median salary: US$30,000
3	Syracuse University Study Response Project	Relations with outcome variables	284	Age: M = 37, SD = 11 Sex: 47% female Race: 76% White	Employment status: 100% currently employed (100% full time) Largest employment sectors were managerial, technology, and administrative Tenure (current job): M = 9.1 years, SD = 8.1 Median salary: US$59,500
4	Mechanical Turk	Relations with unfolding turnover model	720	Age: M = 34, SD = 11 Sex: 56% female Race: 77% White	Employment status: 74% currently employed (54% private sector vs. 44% public sector) Tenure (last job): M = 2.9 years, SD = 3.5 Median salary: US$32,500
5	Mechanical Turk	Relations with career constructs; relations with unfolding turnover model	297	Age: M = 36, SD = 10 Sex: 49% female Race: 80% White	Employment status: 90% currently employed (84% full time) Tenure (current job): M = 5.5 years, SD = 5.3 Median salary: unavailable

Procedure and Measures

Table 1 shows the measures that were administered to each sample along with citations for each. As suggested by the leftmost column in Table 1, we decided to, when possible, merge data across samples for increased statistical power and to reduce the possibility of idiosyncratic effects due to any particular sample.

Initial Scale Development

We first developed a scale to assess job-hopping motives following inductive scale development techniques proposed by Hinkin (1998). Advancement items were written to reflect job-hopping as a means of improving one’s career or job (e.g., better jobs, better positions) whereas escape items were written to reflect job-hopping as a means of avoiding disliked aspects of work (e.g., boredom, disinterest). Scale items were reviewed by two career counselors and five doctoral psychology students for content and clarity. Next, the scale was administered to a sample of university students (Sample 1) and exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring, oblique rotation) was conducted. The scree plot was examined and one-factor, two-factor, and three-factor solutions were compared for clarity and percent of variance explained. These analyses resulted in the selection of a two-factor solution. Four of 12 items were removed from the item pool due to weak factor loadings or cross-loading. Two of the removed items were reverse-coded, while two others included language concerning job satisfaction and opportunities at a new job. The final set of 8 scale items appeared to load onto distinct escape and advancement factors. Factor loadings for each item are shown in Table 3. Cumulatively, the two selected factors accounted for 47.4% of the total variance in scale scores.

Table 3.

Job-Hopping Motives Scale Items and Exploratory Factor Analysis Item Loadings.

Item	Loadings
	Factor 1	Factor 2
Escape motive items
1. Becoming disinterested in a job is a good reason to move from job to job as often as desired	.59	.32
2. When a person discovers they dislike their coworkers, they should move to another job, and keep switching jobs until they finally find a good place to work	.70	.05
3. Because working for one company tends to create boredom, people should move from company to company often	.80	.04
4. Repeatedly changing jobs is an ideal way to get a variety of job experiences	.62	.31
Advancement motive items
5. Even if someone has changed jobs several times, they should take a new job if it involves moving to a better position	.09	.40
6. People should be willing to change jobs as many times as necessary to get the best job possible	.28	.65
7. Frequently moving between jobs is perfectly justified when each job change leads to a more prestigious job	.30	.60
8. It is desirable to periodically move from job to job, looking for the job that best improves one’s lifestyle	.31	.65

Note. Final items retained in Job-Hopping Motives Scale. Responses measured along a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) response scale. Loading of each item onto Factor 1 and Factor 2 based on exploratory factor analysis of Sample 1. Values over .35 are shown in bold.

Results

Evaluating Response Quality

Because the Job-Hopping Motives Scale involves participants’ self-reports, we took steps to ensure that the findings were not due to common method effects, responses biases, or carelessness. To assess possible common method effects, we asked a subsample of Sample 1 to report job-hopping motives at Time 1 and complete other measures at Time 2 about 1 week later; results did not differ substantively for this subgroup, so data were combined into a single sample for analyses. Attention check items (e.g., “respond strongly agree to this question”) were used in Samples 2, 3, and 5, which allowed for detection of careless responding (Meade & Craig, 2012). Finally, in Sample 4, we assessed the possibility of response bias by comparing job-hopping motives to socially desirable (International Personality Item Pool Impression Management Scale, n.d.) and acquiescent responding (Bass, 1956) measures. Correlations were nonsignificant and slightly negative (r = −.10–.03, p > .10), suggesting that response bias was not a serious concern.

Research Question 1: Are Job-Hopping Motives Distinct?

The exploratory factor analysis described above provided initial evidence that the motives were distinct. To further examine this, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) comparing one-factor solutions (job-hopping motives are a single construct) to two-factor solutions (job-hopping motives represent separate advancement and escape factors). Across all samples, the χ² difference test indicated significantly better fit of the data to the two-factor model; values are presented in Table 4. This table also shows that relative fit indices (root mean square error of approximation, comparative fit index, nonnormed fit index) improved substantially in the two-factor solution, though these values did not always strictly meet guidelines for perfect model–data fit.

Table 4.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results, Psychometric Properties, and Factor Correlations of Job-Hopping Motives Scale.

		CFA Results						Escape α	Advancement α	Escape M	Advancement M	Factor r
Sample	N	Model	χ²	Δχ²	RMSEA	CFI	NNFI	Escape α	Advancement α	Escape M	Advancement M	Factor r
2	227	One factor	180.12**	113.88**	.19	.64	.50	.75	.75	2.78	3.68	.32**
		Two factor	66.24**	113.88**	.11	.89	.84
3	284	One factor	102.84**	64.62**	.12	.87	.82	.78	.77	3.11	3.66	.56**
		Two factor	38.22**	64.62**	.06	.97	.96
4	720	One factor	528.84**	406.58**	.19	.69	.57	.77	.78	2.73	3.77	.39**
		Two factor	122.26**	406.58**	.09	.94	.91
5	297	One factor	197.84**	166.15**	.17	.74	.63	.74	.80	2.97	3.81	.35**
		Two factor	31.69	166.15**	.05	.98	.97

Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; Δχ² = difference in χ² between one- and two-factor CFA models with Δdegrees of freedom = 1 (one-factor df = 20, two-factor df = 19); RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; Escape and advance M are mean scores on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale; Factor r is correlation between escape motive scores and advancement motive scores.

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

The internal consistency estimates for measures of both motives and the correlation between motives are shown in Table 4. Both measures met conventional standards for internal consistency reliability. It is also evident that, although distinct, the measures shared a moderate amount of variance, typically less than r = .40. This is reasonable given that both motives tap into workers’ feelings about frequent job change.

On average, workers had higher levels of the advancement motive (M = 3.68–3.81) than the escape motive (M = 2.73–3.11). Because there was an overlap in motives, we were curious how many workers might be high-scoring on both motives. We performed a series of exploratory percentile (median, 75th, and 90th) splits on both motives using data from the four adult samples (see Table 5). When using a median split, just as many workers endorsed both motives (41%) as endorsed just one motive or the other (36%). The proportion of people endorsing both motives fell substantially when considering only participants with the highest levels of the job-hopping motives. For instance, using the 90th percentile cut point, only about one third as many workers endorsed both motives (5%) as endorsed just one motive or the other (18%). Workers with moderate scores on job-hopping motives tended to have a fair amount of overlap, whereas workers with high scores on job-hopping motives tended to more distinctly favor one motive. To summarize, CFA results, factor correlations, and comparisons of scores all point to the presence of two distinct, yet related, job-hopping motives.

Table 5.

Proportion of Workers With High Scores on One, Both, or Neither Motive.

Split Point	Categories
Split Point	High Escape Motive (%)	High Advancement Motive (%)	High on Both Motives (%)	High on Neither Motive (%)
Fiftieth percentile (median)	20	16	41	23
Seventy-fifth percentile	8	27	18	48
Ninetieth percentile	7	11	5	78

Note. N = 1,528 (data from Samples 2 through 5). Escape percentiles: 2.75, 3.50, and 4.00 on a 1–5 scale. Advancement percentiles: 3.75, 4.00, and 4.50 on a 1–5 scale.

Research Question 2: Do Job-Hopping Motives Relate Differently to Dispositional Variables to Suggest Different “Types” of Job-Hoppers?

The pattern of correlations, shown in Table 1, was generally supportive of the expected profiles for the “types” of job-hoppers. Although not every variable was significantly correlated with each motive, the direction of correlation certainly indicates that these are areas of dispositional differences associated with each motive. The profile of the escape motive suggests a general negative reactivity: impulsivity (r = .19, p < .01), lack of persistence (r = −.16, p < .05), negative affect (r = .13, p < .05), and an external locus of control (r = −.11, p = .10). In contrast, the profile of the advancement motive suggests a positive proactivity: lack of impulsivity (r = −.21, p < .01), persistence (r = .26, p < .01), growth need strength (r = .17, p < .01), and internal locus of control (r = .32, p < .01). The latter aligns with the general finding that proactivity is associated with multiple modern career constructs (Sullivan & Baruch, 2009).

We also examined demographic variables to see whether there were differences between the two motives. First, in relation to claims about Millennials embracing job-hopping (Gallup, 2016; Schawbel, 2013), we found very slight evidence in terms of negative correlations between age and both motives, r = −.04 and −.06 (albeit a nonsignificant relation between age and escape). Next, the data point rather clearly to the escape motive profile as being male, highly educated and rather well-off financially. This image somewhat contrasts the image of hobos that were described by Ghiselli (1974) and more closely aligns with the image of mobile executives presented by Cheramie, Sturman, and Walsh (2007).

Research Question 3: How Do Job-Hopping Motives Relate to Withdrawal Constructs?

Table 1 shows that the escape and advancement motives tended to relate to withdrawal constructs in similar directions and magnitudes. Both motives were associated with decreased normative commitment (r = −.29 and −.46, p < .01) and increased thoughts (r = .34 and .25, p < .01) and intentions (r = .17 and .16, p < .01) to quit one’s current job. Both were also associated with somewhat decreased job involvement (r = −.19, p < .01 and −.08, p = .16). Although both motives were associated with normative commitment, neither motive was related to the broad organizational commitment construct, which largely encompasses value congruence (Bozeman & Perrewé, 2001). In summary, both job-hopping motives were related to decreased loyalty and involvement with organizations and increased organizational withdrawal.

Research Question 4: How Do Job-Hopping Motives Integrate With Popular Career Concepts?

The general expectation was that the advancement motives would relate positively with modern career attitudes and indicators of career confidence. Career self-efficacy was negatively related to the escape motive (r = −.21, p < .01) but unrelated to the advancement motive (r = .02, p = .76). Job search intensity was positively related to both motives (r = .38 and .32, p < .01); this was initially surprising given the rather quick and impulsive quitting decisions that may be related to the escape motive. However, in responding to these questions, workers described job search activities within the past year, which may be a long enough time frame that most people have at least done some of the activities (e.g., updated a resume, looked at a job ad) regardless of job-hopping motive. In general, the advancement motive was more strongly related than the escape motive to the protean, boundaryless, and kaleidoscope career elements, as was expected. There were some surprising findings, though, such as the escape motive being positively related to protean career values (r = .15, p < .05), and the organizational mobility element of the boundaryless career being slightly more related to escape (r = .12, p < .05) than advancement (r = .09, p = .12); implications of this are described in the discussion. In all, it appears that the advancement motive was related to modern self-directed career attitudes, including the protean and boundaryless concepts; these relations were generally stronger than for the escape motive.

Research Question 5: How Do Job-Hopping Motives Integrate With Popular Turnover Concepts?

We asked workers to report their most recent voluntary turnover experience in terms of components from the unfolding model of turnover. First, we expected that both motives would relate to scripted quitting because job-hopping may represent repeated enactment of a behavioral script (e.g., quitting when another offer comes along; quitting when the work gets boring). This was only the case for the escape motive (r = .15, p < .01); the advancement motive was unrelated to use of a script (r = −.01, p = .75). The advancement motive was related to image violation during the most recent turnover experience (r = .08, p < .01), suggesting that they didn't feel they “fit in” at their most recent employer. We would have expected the same sentiment from those endorsing the escape motive, but that was not the case (r = −.03, p = .34).

We thought that only the advancement motive would relate to job search activities and having a job offer before quitting. This was true for job search activities, but both the escape and advancement motive made turnover decisions based on having a likely job offer (r = .08 and .09, p < .01). The somewhat impulsive and reactive tendencies associated with the escape motive may have been tempered by financial constraints such as not being able to quit until another source of income is secured. Given the reduced amount of job search associated with the escape motive, they may also be making more lateral than upward job moves.

Finally, Lee and Mitchell (1994) suggested that one way to evaluate the way that workers move through the turnover stages is to note the amount of time the process takes. We asked participants to report how much time it took them to make their decision to quit and found that both motives were related to making somewhat quick turnover decisions (r = −.09 and −.08, p < .01). This seems to fit the characterization of job-hoppers as making fairly quick decisions to leave a job, especially as described by the turnover perspective.

Research Question 6: Are Job-Hopping Motives Related to Work History?

We attempted to connect job-hopping motives with work history variables that capture the nature of job-hopping behavior. As the work history variables section in Table 1 shows, this was moderately successful. The number of jobs held during recent 1- and 5-year time periods was not strongly related to job-hopping motives. The general trend seemed to be that as the time range expands, the stronger job-hopping motives related to the number of jobs a person has held (an exception was the nonsignificant relation between escape motive and number of jobs held during one’s life).

Of course, the number of jobs a person has held is a contaminated measure of job-hopping because it captures both voluntary and involuntary job changes. To reduce this confound and try to capture the voluntary nature of job-hopping-related quitting, we asked Study 3 participants to report the number of jobs they had voluntarily quit during their lifetime and found this to be significantly related to both motives (r = .08, p < .05 and r = .10, p < .01). We also created a ratio of voluntarily quit jobs relative to the total number of jobs held over one’s life and found that job-hopping motives were associated with that measure as well (r = .11, p < .01 and r = .09, p < .05).

Another work history variable suggested by the nature of job-hopping is the rate of job change over time. The variables discussed thus far have been confounded with the age of the worker; older workers have had more time than younger workers to manifest job-hopping behaviors. To provide some control for this and to hone in more closely on the fact that job-hoppers should move from job to job fairly quickly, we calculated a variable called annual job change rate by taking the number of jobs a person has worked during his/her life, and dividing that by the approximate number of working years. Our calculation was number of jobs held in life divided by (age 17), with 17 being an approximate number of nonworking years. Annual job change rate was related to the advancement motive but not related to the escape motive. All of the correlations between job-hopping motives and work history were rather small, but these values fall only slightly short of the range of meta-analytic estimates of relations between satisfaction and turnover (r = −.17) or commitment and turnover (−.22; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000).

A follow-up question we had was whether job-hopping motives could “predict” work history variables above and beyond established predictors. We tested this by conducting hierarchical regression models in the most versatile sample, which was Sample 5. This sample was selected because it included both career variables and turnover variables, along with several demographic variables. The analytic strategy was to conduct two sets of nested models; the first to evaluate any incremental variance from job-hopping motives over career variables, and the second to evaluate any incremental variance from job-hopping motives over turnover variables. We selected annual job change rate as the dependent variable because, it seemed to be the most relevant work history variable that was available in Sample 5.

The regression models indicated that job-hopping motives accounted for a meaningful amount of variance in job change rates beyond that attributable to demographic variables and to career and turnover variables. As Table 6 shows, the R ² values associated with the models significantly increased in Step 3 when job-hopping motives were added. In Regression A (involving career variables), the escape motive was significant (β = .14, p = .02), but the advancement motive was not (β = .06, p = .36). Given the construct overlap between the advancement motive and the career variables entered in Step 2, this result is quite logical. In Regression B (involving turnover variables), the escape motive was significant again (β = .14, p = .02). Given the similarity in β estimates in Regression A and Regression B, it would appear that the escape motive is unique above and beyond the components suggested by the unfolding model of turnover. Finally, in Regression B, the advancement motive was nearly significant (β = .10, p = .09). It appears that using job-hopping motives adds utility above and beyond established variables offered by the career or the turnover perspectives. Taken together, the correlation and regression analyses indicated that job-hopping motives related to important work history variables and even have the ability to predict such variables over and above demographics and other well-established variables.

Table 6.

Hierarchical Regression Models Predicting Annual Job Change Rate.

Regression A: Demographics, Turnover Variables, and Job-Hopping Motives
	Step 1: Demographic Variables	Step 2: Add Turnover Variables	Step 3: Add Job-Hopping Motives
Variable	β	β	β	p
Education	.02	.00	.01	.90
Sex	.03	.02	.04	.44
Age	−.35	−.35	−.33	<.001
Organizational level	−.02	−.01	−.02	.78
Protean career		.06	.05	.52
Protean values		.11	.07	.34
Boundaryless mindset		−.03	−.04	.57
Boundaryless organizational mobility		−.16	−.14	.01
Kaleidoscope challenge		.06	.07	.31
Escape motive			.14	.02
Advancement motive			.06	.36
Change in R ²	.12**	.05**	.03*
Model R ²	.12	.17	.20
Adjusted model R ²	.11	.15	.17
Model F	9.49**	6.46**	6.23**
Regression B: Demographics, Career Variables, and Job-Hopping Motives
	Step 1: Demographic Variables	Step 2: Add Career Variables	Step 3: Add Job-Hopping Motives
Variable	β	β	β	p
Education	.02	.00	−.01	.90
Sex	.02	.05	.07	.24
Age	−.36	−.33	−.32	<.001
Organizational level	−.01	−.01	−.03	.61
Shock		−.02	−.01	.85
Script		.17	.17	.00
Image		−.20	−.19	.02
Satisfaction		.03	.04	.61
Search for alternatives		−.16	−.13	.16
Likely job offer		.07	.02	.87
Escape motive			.14	.02
Advancement motive			.10	.09
Change in R ²	.13**	.06**	.04**
Model R ²	.13	.19	.23
Adjusted model R ²	.12	.16	.19
Model F	10.11**	6.26**	6.45**

Note. N = 297 (Sample 5 data). Dependent variable: annual job change rate.

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

Discussion

Aligning with explanations of job-hopping from the career and organizational turnover perspectives, there are two distinct but related job-hopping motives. The escape motive is associated with a negative reactivity, whereas the advancement motive is associated with a positive proactivity. Both job-hopping motives were related to organizational withdrawal and a work history marked by increased job transitions. The escape motive was related to routinized, script-like quitting behaviors. The advancement motive was related to active career self-management and a desire for challenging work.

The relations between the motives and dispositional constructs help to establish the discriminant validity of the two motives. The (concurrently assessed) criterion-related validity of the Job-Hopping Motives Scale was also established. The scale was most indicative of feelings of withdrawal (e.g., thoughts and intentions to quit one’s job). To a somewhat lesser extent, the motives were able to predict one’s history of job change. Regression analysis indicated that job-hopping motives have a small but significant degree of incremental validity over other well-established variables.

Theoretical Implications for Career Research

Advancement job-hopping can become dysfunctional

Of the two types of job-hopping evaluated here, advancement would almost definitely be considered the more socially acceptable motive. But even this seemingly rational approach to navigating the labor market may have drawbacks for workers. Even if a worker moves upward each time she changes jobs, there is probably a point at which additional job changes will actually hamper her career. Hiring managers are still wary of job-hoppers (CareerBuilder/Harris Polls, 2014), which may stymie career growth. If the length of time spent at each job is relatively short, a worker may not gain applied skills and abilities that would transfer to other jobs (Carnevale & Smith, 2013), which may result in reduced performance or career stagnation. At what point modern career mentalities become problematic would be an excellent area for future research.

Advancement job-hoppers may change jobs because they need to rather than because they want to

The advancement motive was related more highly to self-directed (protean) career constructs than to mobility-centered (boundaryless) career attitudes. This was unexpected because the nature of job-hopping suggests an emphasis on a career spanning multiple organizations more than a career guided by one’s personal values (which may or may not involve multiple organizations). One possible explanation for this finding is that people who endorse job-hopping for advancement purposes will do what it takes to succeed (follow one’s values) but do not specifically wish to work for multiple organizations. This fits with career scholars’ explanations of workers reacting or adapting to labor market changes (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996). This does raise a question about the role of career exploration in job-hopping and modern career attitudes (Zikic & Hall, 2009). Future work may examine the extent to which advancement job-hoppers and those with protean and boundaryless mindsets feel that they must change jobs frequently or whether they actually enjoy the process of frequent job change.

Theoretical Implications for Organizational Turnover Research

Turnover models should incorporate forces beyond those directed at the current job

Turnover models tend to focus on a worker’s reaction to the current job (e.g., image violation, satisfaction) rather than broader withdrawal variables that may apply across multiple organizations. We agree with Lee, Mitchell, Holtom, McDaniel, and Hill (1999) that work history should be incorporated into turnover models; at present, most models predict only one instance of quitting. Job-hopping motives are an overarching withdrawal-related motive that would presumably be present regardless of a person’s current work situation, and may predict multiple instances of quitting. Some models have incorporated individual difference variables and scripts, which to a small extent overlaps with job-hopping motives (Lee & Mitchell, 1994; Mobley, 1977). Shipp, Furst-Holloway, Harris, and Rosen (2014) suggested changes to the unfolding model to incorporate employees who quit and then return to the same organization. Likewise, new paths could be created for job-hoppers. It seems that the script component may capture some of the escape motive but not necessarily the advancement motive.

Hobos do not perfectly fit the description proposed by Ghiselli

The profile associated with the escape motive only somewhat resembles the hobo described by Ghiselli (1974). The escape motive was associated with impulsivity and external locus of control, which seems to fit. However, this motive also seemed to be related to increased education, income, and organizational level, suggesting that hobos are more affluent than destitute. This does not seem to be the low-level wanderlust-inflicted hobo described by Ghiselli (1974) and others. In the career literature, research has explored differences between psychological boundarylessness and physical boundarylessness in terms of the opportunities one has to enact their desired behaviors (Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). In this light, it seems that Ghiselli’s so-called hobo syndrome may develop when workers are in positions of power that allow them to move rather haphazardly between jobs (Cheramie et al., 2007).

Implications

Career counselors

Career counselors may wish to use this measure when clients have had a large number of voluntary job transitions. The Job-Hopping Motives Scale could help contextualize previous job transitions. Those with advancement motives may benefit from discussions of desired career goals. Those with escape motives may benefit from discussions of work-related stressors, vocational interests, and occupational fit. Career counselors also have a role in describing the possible negative consequences of job-hopping, such as organizations’ reluctance to hire job-hoppers (CareerBuilder/Harris Polls, 2014).

Human resources professionals

Rather than dismissing job-hoppers out of hand as some have suggested (e.g., Suster, 2010), a hiring manager should explore the reasons why (i.e., the underlying motives) a person has held many jobs. On the one hand, past job-hopping predicts future job-hopping, so there is clearly some element of risk involved in hiring such a person (Judge & Watanabe, 1995). They are mobile, and they may continue that trend of mobility. However, the current study suggests that advancement job-hoppers may actually be very desirable employees. Their internal motivation, positive proactivity, and strong desire for growth and challenge may lead to strong performance. If an organization has opportunities for advancement-oriented job-hoppers to move up within the organization, then advancement job-hoppers may be worth the risk. Future research needs to address possible links between job-hopping motives and work performance.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research

The primary strength of this research is that it integrates components from two previously fragmented perspectives of job-hopping to provide a unified framework. We view this research as being more comprehensive than either perspective in isolation. To our knowledge, this is the only research that has attempted to systematically study the motives underlying job-hopping.

A second strength of this study is the multipart sampling strategy used here to gather a diverse pool of workers in terms of employing organization, occupation, socioeconomic status, and work history. In contrast to many turnover models that were developed based on exit interviews from a single organization, we have tried to take an approach that is more likely to generalize.

A possible limitation of the current study is reliance on self-report data. For example, participants may not always accurately recall or report their work histories. Because job-hopping research focuses on long-term employment trends spanning many employers, research designs that could be used in turnover research (e.g., using archival employment records as a measure of turnover) are not feasible.

While job-hopping motives were moderately related to dispositions, withdrawal, and career orientation, they were less strongly related to turnover and work history (see Table 1). This may indicate the presence of moderators such as employment sector, personal financial situation, labor market conditions, or embeddedness (Crossley, Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield, 2007) that compel workers to remain at their jobs in spite of wanting to leave. Evaluating the degree to which such moderators interact with job-hopping motives could provide additional explanatory power in the prediction of turnover and job change patterns.

Job-hopping is inherently a longitudinal construct; it may take many years for job-hopping motives to manifest as observable behavior. The data presented here are cross-sectional, which poses an obvious limitation. Although these findings are promising, future research is needed to examine the ways in which job-hopping motives relate to one’s future job transitions. A related limitation of the present research is that, due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, we cannot assess the temporal stability of job-hopping motives. It is possible that these motives vary over time as people have emotional reactions to their job transitions (Boswell, Boudreau, & Tichy, 2005).

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.

References

Allen

N. J.

Meyer

J. P.

(1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 63, 1–18.

Arthur

M. B.

Rousseau

D. M.

(1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bass

B. M.

(1956). Development and evaluation of a scale for measuring social acquiescence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 296–299.

Betz

N. E.

Klein

K. L.

Taylor

K. M.

(1996). Evaluation of a short form of the career decision-making self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47–57.

Boswell

W. R.

Boudreau

J. W.

Tichy

(2005). The relationship between employee job change and job satisfaction: The honeymoon-hangover effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 882–892.

Bozeman

D. P.

Perrewé

P. L.

(2001). The effect of item content overlap on organizational commitment questionnaire—turnover cognitions relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 161–173.

Briscoe

J. P.

Hall

D. T.

Frautschy DeMuth

R. L.

(2006). Protean and boundaryless careers: An empirical exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 30–47.

Cappelli

(2008). Employment relationships: New models of white-collar work. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

CareerBuilder/Harris Polls. (2014). Nearly one-third of employers expect workers to job-hop. Retrieved from https://shar.es/1G4gQk

10.

Carnevale

A. P.

Smith

(2013). Workplace basics: The skills employees need and employers want. Human Resource Development International, 16, 491–501.

11.

Casler

Bickel

Hackett

(2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156–2160.

12.

Cheramie

R. A.

Sturman

M. C.

Walsh

(2007). Executive career management: Switching organizations and the boundaryless career. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 359–374.

13.

Crossley

C. D.

Bennett

R. J.

Jex

S. M.

Burnfield

J. L.

(2007). Development of a global measure of job embeddedness and integration into a traditional model of turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1031–1042.

14.

Gallup. (2016). How Millennials want to work and live. Washington, DC: Gallup.

15.

Ghiselli

E. E.

(1974). Some perspectives for industrial psychology. American Psychologist, 80, 80–87.

16.

Griffeth

R. W.

Hom

P. W.

Gaertner

(2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488.

17.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.

18.

Hall

D. T.

(1976). Careers in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

19.

Hall

D. T.

(2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 1–13.

20.

Hinkin

T. R.

(1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.

21.

International Personality Item Pool: A Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of Advanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://ipip.ori.org/

22.

Jennings

(1970, 7). Mobicentric man replaces the insider and the organization today. Psychology Today, 4, 35–36, 70–72.

23.

Judge

T. A.

Watanabe

(1995). Is the past prologue? A test of Ghiselli’s hobo syndrome. Journal of Management, 21, 211–229.

24.

Kopelman

R. E.

Rovenpor

J. L.

Millsap

R. E.

(1992). Rationale and construct validity evidence for the Job Search Behavior Index: Because intentions (and New Year’s resolutions) often come to naught. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 269–287.

25.

Kramer

(1974). Reality shock: Why nurses leave nursing. St. Louis, MO: C.V. Mosby.

26.

Landers

R. N.

Behrend

T. S.

(2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 142–164.

27.

Lee

T. W.

Mitchell

T. R.

(1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19, 51–89.

28.

Lee

T. W.

Mitchell

T. R.

Holtom

B. C.

McDaniel

L. S.

Hill

J. W.

(1999). The unfolding model of turnover: A replication and extension. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 450–462.

29.

Lodahl

Kejner

(1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24–33.

30.

Maertz

C. P.

Jr Griffeth

R. W.

(2004). Eight motivational forces and voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with implications for research. Journal of Management, 30, 667–683.

31.

Mainiero

L. A.

Sullivan

S. E.

(2005). Kaleidoscope careers: An alternative explanation for the “opt-out generation.” Academy of Management Executive, 19, 106–123.

32.

Meade

A. W.

Craig

S. B.

(2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17, 437–455.

33.

Mobley

W. H.

(1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237–240.

34.

Mowday

R. T.

Koberg

C. S.

MacArthur

A. W.

(1984). The psychology of the withdrawal process: A cross validation test of Mobley’s intermediate linkages model of turnover in the two samples. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 79–94.

35.

Mowday

R. T.

Steers

R. M.

Porter

L. W.

(1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.

36.

Schawbel

(2013). Millennial branding and beyond.com survey reveals the rising cost of hiring workers from the millennial generation. Retrieved from http://millennialbranding.com/2013/cost-millennial-retention-study

37.

Shipp

A. J.

Furst-Holloway

Harris

T. B.

Rosen

. (2014). Gone today but here tomorrow: Extending the unfolding model of turnover to consider boomerang employees. Personnel Psychology, 67, 421–462.

38.

Spector

P. E.

(1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 335–340.

39.

Spinella

(2007). Normative data and a short form of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. International Journal of Neuroscience, 117, 359–368.

40.

Sullivan

S. E.

Baruch

(2009). Advances in career theory and research: A critical review and agenda for future exploration. Journal of Management, 35, 1542–1571.

41.

Sullivan

S. E.

Forret

M. L.

Carraher

S. M.

Mainiero

L. A.

(2009). Using the kaleidoscope career model to examine generational differences in work attitudes. Career Development International, 14, 284–302.

42.

Suster

(2010, 4). Never hire job hoppers. Never. They make terrible employees. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-suster-never-hire-job-hoppers-never-they-make-terrible-employees-2010-4

43.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of the brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

44.

Woo

S. E.

(2011). A study of Ghiselli’s hobo syndrome. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 461–469.

45.

Zikic

Hall

D. T.

(2009). Toward a more complex view of career exploration. The Career Development Quarterly, 58, 181–191.