The mediating influence of career success in relationship between career mobility criteria, career anchors and satisfaction with organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate how perceived career channels and career anchors are related to objective internal career success, and how subjective career success mediates the effects of objective success on employer satisfaction. Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected using questionnaires, and hypotheses were tested on a sample of 800 engineers and managers. Of the sample, 35 percent were female and 67 percent worked in the private sector. Findings – The findings show that the more respondents perceive that performance carries weight in promotion decisions, the higher their level of objective career success. In contrast, the importance placed on relations with the hierarchy has no significant influence. Respondents with a strong management anchor report greater objective career success, and those with a strong life style anchor report lesser objective career success, but greater success in life outside work. Finally, the findings indicate that job success is associated with greater satisfaction with employer, whereas life success is related to lesser satisfaction. Research limitations/implications – This study is based on a sample taken from one profession (engineers), in a specific cultural context. The cross-sectional research design precludes the inference of some causality conclusions. Practical implications – Organizations may benefit from disseminating promotion attribution criteria and reducing perceptions of favoritism in reward allocation. In addition, this study shows that not only individuals but also the employer can benefit from greater positive interdependence between career success and life success. Originality/value – This study represents the first comprehensive attempt to examine the role of perceived career channels and career anchors in objective and subjective career success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".