Perceived value of external job mobility: development and validation of job mobility mindset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how beliefs about the value of external mobility vary across individuals and influence job seeker outcomes. While some view frequent external mobility as job-hopping and a sign of disloyalty, others view external mobility as a way to build knowledge, skills and abilities across organizations. Thus, we conceptualize a new construct, job mobility mindset (JMM), which captures individual beliefs about the human capital and signaling value of external job mobility to careers and develop a psychometrically valid measure of JMM. Design/methodology/approach Across four studies, we develop and validate a measure of JMM. We demonstrate the distinction between JMM and extant mobility-related constructs. Additionally, we design a resume screening task to demonstrate the criterion validity of JMM on job seeker outcomes, above and beyond established constructs. Findings A seven-item measure of JMM with two factors was developed. In testing criterion validity, we find that raters who possess a stronger JMM than a weaker JMM, evaluate high-mobility candidates more favorably in the form of higher competence ratings, interview recommendations and starting salaries. Originality/value The conceptualization of JMM contributes to building a more comprehensive nomological network on careers and job mobility. Further, JMM advances research on job mobility and careers by accounting for and capturing more precisely the differing beliefs about the value of external mobility and their consequences for applicant selection.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".