Human capital development practices and career success: The moderating role of country development and income inequality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Employees can enhance their human capital through participation in organizationally sponsored development activities. However, there is little research on the extent to which the effects of such practices vary depending on national context. Adopting a human capital theory perspective, we hypothesized a positive relationship between human capital development practices experienced in one's career and objective and subjective career success (salary level and perceived financial success, respectively) and tested two country‐level institutional factors (country development and income inequality) as moderators. Results from our multi‐level analyses of a large‐scale sample of over 8800 managers and professionals from 28 countries showed that, as expected, experiencing a larger number of different human capital development practices was associated with higher salary level and greater perceived financial success. The relationship between development practices and salary level was stronger in the case of developed countries and weakly negatively affected for countries with higher income inequality. The relationship between development practices and perceived financial success was weaker for developed countries and unaffected by income inequality. Our research thus identifies boundary conditions to the application of human capital theory in different contexts and contributes to the comparative careers literature by showing that institutional factors affect the outcome of organizationally sponsored development activities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".