Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 638–646

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Protean and boundaryless career attitudes and organizational commitment:

The effects of perceived supervisor support☆
K. Övgü Çakmak-Otluoğlu ⁎
Department of Human Resource Management, Faculty of Business Administration, Istanbul University, Avcılar, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Despite the traditional sentiment that protean and boundaryless career attitudes indicate a de-
Received 31 October 2011 cline in organizational commitment, little empirical evidence is available. The present study
Available online 11 March 2012 examined the relation of protean and boundaryless career attitudes to organizational commit-
ment and whether the perceived supervisor support moderated these relationships. The re-
Keywords: sults based on data from 380 employees demonstrate that organizational mobility
Protean career preference is negatively related to all three dimensions of organizational commitment. Self-
Boundaryless career directed career management is positively related to affective and normative commitment
Organizational commitment
and negatively related to continuance commitment, while values-driven career orientation is
Supervisor support
negatively related to normative commitment. Moreover, there is no significant evidence pro-
Non-Western context
vided for a moderating effect of perceived supervisor support on the relationships between
protean and boundaryless career attitudes and organizational commitment. Perceived supervi-
sor support has only a main effect on affective and normative commitment.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

There has been a significant change in the nature of careers over the last few decades (Sullivan & Baruch, 2009; Sullivan, Carden,
& Martin, 1998). Situated within the realm of changing working environments, protean and boundaryless careers have emerged as
the “symbols of the new career” (Briscoe & Hall, 2006, p. 5). Despite their recent popularity in the careers literature, several authors
argue that these career models need to be examined empirically (Briscoe, Hall, & DeMuth, 2006; Pringle & Mallon, 2003). More-
over, both the protean and boundaryless career models have been developed in the United States (Briscoe et al., 2006) and tested
there as well as in Western Europe (De Vos & Soens, 2008; Enache et al., 2009; Gasteiger & Briscoe, 2007; Segers et al., 2008). The
current study strives to move theory forward on protean and boundaryless careers by examining the relationships between pro-
tean and boundaryless career attitudes and organizational commitment. Additionally, the study takes place in Turkey, a non-
Western context that allows us to expand our understanding of the global reach of these important theories.
Within the careers literature, there has been a traditional sentiment that protean and boundaryless career attitudes indicate a
decline in organizational commitment (Sturges, Guest, & Davey, 2000; Sullivan, 1999). Without being tested empirically, it is still
ambiguous whether employees with protean and boundaryless career attitudes are less committed to their organizations
(Zaleska & Menezes, 2009). Consequently, this study addresses the research gap in the careers literature by examining the rela-
tion of protean and boundaryless career attitudes to organizational commitment.
While not the primary focus of the research, the Turkish context is an important moderating influence upon the studied phe-
nomena. Turkish employees have been experiencing more transitions and insecure employment during their working lives and

☆ This work was supported by Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Istanbul University. Project number:4202. I acknowledge Jon P. Briscoe and
anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.
⁎ Fax: + 90 212 590 4000.
E-mail address: ovgu@istanbul.edu.tr.

0001-8791/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2012.03.001
 K.Ö. Çakmak-Otluoğlu / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 638–646 639

have traditional career paths only within the public sector or large organizations. In line with these developments, it can be said
that career boundaries are shifting in Turkey.

1.1. Protean and boundaryless careers

The reviewed literature demonstrates that protean and boundaryless career models are sometimes used interchangeably as
the two main dominant symbols of the new career (Briscoe & Hall, 2006). Similarities between these models may contribute to
their interchangeable use (Inkson, 2006). For instance, several authors emphasize some characteristics of protean career (e.g.,
personal identification with meaningful work; Mirvis & Hall, 1996, individual responsibility for career management; Brousseau
et al., 1996) for conceptualizing the boundaryless career. Hall (2004) similarly states that the degree of mobility, which is strongly
associated with boundaryless career, is high in protean career. Despite their similarities, Briscoe et al. (2006) found that the pro-
tean and boundaryless career attitudes are correlated yet distinct constructs.
The protean career is conceptualized as a career that is driven by the person, not the organization (Hall, 1976; 2004). Briscoe
and Hall (2006) suggest that a protean career has two dimensions—self-directed career management and values-driven career
orientation—which describe the protean career as an individual preference to control his/her career behaviorally and adequately
meet his/her career needs. Hence, individuals who have protean career attitudes will guide the direction of their careers consis-
tent with their own values, rather than the values of the organization (Briscoe et al., 2006; Hall, 2002).
The boundaryless career is defined as “a sequence of job opportunities that goes beyond the boundaries of any single employ-
ment settings” (De Filippi & Arthur, 1994, p. 307). Even though Arthur (1994) has noted that there are multiple meanings beyond
this general meaning, the reviewed literature demonstrates that the boundaryless career is typically examined with regard to
crossing organizational boundaries and is characterized by physical mobility (Inkson, 2006). Sullivan and Arthur (2006) general-
ize the boundaryless career to include psychological as well as physical mobility. Reflecting the psychological dimension of
boundaryless career, Briscoe et al. (2006) operationalized the boundaryless career along two dimensions: Organizational mobility
preference and boundaryless mindset. Organizational mobility preference is defined as “the strength of interest in remaining with
a single (or multiple) employer(s)” and boundaryless mindset is conceptualized as “one's general attitude to working across or-
ganizational boundaries” (Briscoe et al., 2006, p. 33).
The reviewed literature shows that relatively few empirical studies examined the correlates of protean and boundaryless ca-
reer attitudes. For instance, Briscoe et al. (2006) found that proactive personality, career authenticity, openness to experience, and
mastery goal orientation correlated to both the protean and boundaryless career attitudes. In addition, De Vos and Soens (2008)
found that career insight, perceived employability, and career satisfaction correlated to protean career attitudes. More empirical
studies on the correlates/outcomes of these career models need to be done to enrich theory (Briscoe et al., 2006; Pringle & Mallon,
2003).

1.2. Organizational commitment

Organizational commitment is one of the most important concepts in the fields of management, organizational behavior, and
human resource management (Cohen, 2007). Because of its links to turnover intensions and actual turnover (Mathieu & Zajac,
1990; Solinger, Van Olffen, & Roe, 2008). Meyer and Allen (1991) have conceptualized organizational commitment as a three-
component model (affective, continuance, and normative commitment). According to Meyer and Allen's (1991) organizational
commitment model, affective commitment reflects employees’ emotional attachments to the organization, continuance commit-
ment reflects employees’ perceptions of costs of leaving the organization, and normative commitment reflects employees’ feel-
ings of moral obligation to remain with the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1996). In other words, the three components of
commitment are widely seen as three different constructs (Meyer, Stanley, & Parfyonova, 2012).
The reviewed literature suggests that the protean and boundaryless career models imply the trend of diminishing organiza-
tional commitment (Zaleska & Menezes, 2009). Hall (2004) has said that the key attitude of organizational commitment in tra-
ditional career is replaced by the key attitudes of work satisfaction and professional commitment in the protean career.
Sullivan (1999) emphasizes that individuals with boundaryless career attitudes will be less committed to their organizations. De-
spite the popularity of associating the protean and boundaryless career models with potentially decreased organizational com-
mitment, there is little empirical research on this issue. Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009) carried out the only research that
explored this assumed relationship and did not establish empirical support. They therefore suggested analyzing additional vari-
ables that may impact the relationships between protean and boundaryless career attitudes and organizational commitment
(Briscoe & Finkelstein, 2009). One such variable may be supervisor support. Because several authors found that supervisor sup-
port was strongly related to organizational commitment (Ko, Price, & Mueller, 1997). Moreover, it should be noted that changing
working environments and nature of careers have led to changes in psychological contracts between organizations and em-
ployees (Hall & Moss, 1998). Employees exchanged loyalty for job security under the old contract, while employees exchanged
performance for employability under the new contract (Hall, 1996; Rousseau, 1995). Thus, fostering organizational commitment
is a challenging issue both to the organization and the employee. In line with these changes, supervisor support may help orga-
nizations to maintain organizational commitment by enhancing the career development and employability of employees (Ito &
Brotheridge, 2005). Particularly taking into account that employees with protean and boundaryless career attitudes seek out op-
portunities to develop new competencies in different areas (Briscoe & Hall, 2006), the importance of supervisor support seems
reasonable. Thus, the present study attempts to investigate whether the relationships between the protean and boundaryless
640 K.Ö. Çakmak-Otluoğlu / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 638–646

career attitudes and organizational commitment is moderated by the perceived supervisor support. Before reviewing supervisor
support and its potential relationship to organizational commitment, more basic assumptions about protean and boundaryless
career attitudes and organizational commitment will be reviewed.
Affective, continuance, and normative commitment reflect distinguishable psychological states (Meyer & Allen, 1991) and de-
velop from different antecedents (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Employees with strong affective commitment, which mainly develops
from positive work experiences (Meyer & Allen, 1987), remain in the organization because they want to (Allen & Meyer,
1996). Thus, I assume that boundaryless mindset and protean career attitudes (self-directed career management and values-
driven career orientation) will not demonstrate a direct statistical relationship with affective commitment. On the other hand,
normative commitment is mainly related to personal values or beliefs that it is the right thing to remain with the organization
(Ko et al., 1997). I therefore expect that boundaryless mindset and protean career attitudes will not demonstrate a direct statis-
tical relationship with normative commitment.
A person who desires high organizational mobility would prefer a career that moves across organizations (Briscoe et al., 2006).
Due to the fact that affective commitment emphasizes the feeling of being happy to spend the rest of one's career with the orga-
nization (Solinger et al., 2008), I suppose that organizational mobility preference will demonstrate a negative relationship with
affective commitment. Normative commitment refers to employees’ feelings of moral obligation to remain with the organization
(Allen & Meyer, 1996). When looked at the items of normative commitment scale (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993), it is a very sim-
ilar construct to organizational mobility preference scale. Taking into account that the items of organizational mobility preference
scale are reverse scored (Briscoe et al., 2006), I suppose that organizational mobility preference will demonstrate a negative re-
lationship with normative commitment.

H1. Organizational mobility preference relates negatively to affective commitment.

H2. Organizational mobility preference relates negatively to normative commitment.

Meyer and Allen (1991) advanced continuance commitment as a conceptualization of Becker's Side-Bet Theory. They there-
fore proposed that continuance commitment develops from side-bets and also lack of perceived job opportunities (Allen &
Meyer, 1990). With regard to side-bets such as development of firm-specific skills within the current organization (Wallace,
1997), continuance commitment relates to the lack of external employability. However, individuals with boundaryless mindset
seek to make themselves more valuable in the labor market (Briscoe et al., 2006). I therefore expect that individuals higher in
boundaryless mindset would be the lower on continuance commitment. Similarly, individuals with protean career attitudes
(self-directed career management and values-driven career orientation) would be more likely to leave their organizations
owing to their independent natures irrespective of perceived cost associated with leaving the organization (Briscoe &
Finkelstein, 2009).

H3. a) Organizational mobility preference, b) boundaryless mindset, c) self-directed career management, and d) values-driven
career orientation each relate negatively to continuance commitment.

1.3. Moderating effect of perceived supervisor support

Supervisor support including providing assignments that give subordinates the opportunity to develop and strengthen new
skills, taking the time to learn about subordinates’ career goals and aspirations, and supporting subordinates’ attempts to acquire
additional training or education to further their careers may facilitate the proactive behaviors of employees who hold protean and
boundaryless attitudes. Thus, it's expected that supervisor support will have an important role in helping the employees in this
regard (Kidd & Smewing, 2001). Several studies indicate that supervisor support is correlated with organizational commitment
(Kidd & Smewing, 2001; Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994; Ko et al., 1997). Although supervisor support may have different types
(Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990), the present study examines only the supervisor support on career development.
Because it may influence the affective commitment of employees (Fisher, 1985; Payne & Huffman, 2005), I expect that boundary-
less mindset and protean career attitudes will become positively related to affective commitment when perceived supervisor sup-
port is high. From the point of normative commitment, it can be said that employees may feel obligated to reciprocate and may
become more normatively committed to their organizations in return for supervisor support (Eisenberger et al., 2002). Thus, I
suppose that boundaryless mindset and protean career attitudes will become positively related to normative commitment
when perceived supervisor support is high. Although these assumptions may seem contrary (that supervisor support would mod-
erate the non-existent relationships between protean and boundaryless career attitudes and affective and normative commit-
ment), I expect that cross-over interactions where main effects for different groups in the data cancel each other out.

H4. a) boundaryless mindset, b) self-directed career management, and c) values-driven career orientation each relate positively
to affective and normative commitment when perceived supervisor support is high.

I suggest that if people with higher levels of protean or boundaryless career attitudes perceive that their immediate supervisors
support their career development in their current position, the negative influence of these attitudes on continuance commitment
will be lessened.
 K.Ö. Çakmak-Otluoğlu / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 638–646 641

H5. The effect of a) organizational mobility preference, b) boundaryless mindset, c) self-directed career management, and
d) values-driven career orientation on continuance commitment is moderated by the perceived supervisor support; this negative
influence is lessened when perceived supervisor support is high.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and procedure

The data was collected from 380 white-collar employees who had a minimum one-year work experience in several private
sector organizations located in Istanbul, Turkey. The respondents participated in the survey via Internet and were from 68 orga-
nizations that varied broadly in terms of industry and size. Samples obtained from each organization ranged from 2 to 42. Females
comprised 53.4% of the sample. The average age of participants was 30.30 years old (SD = 4.61) ranged from 22 to 54, with an
average work experience of 8.60 years (SD = 5.24) ranged from 1 to 32, and an organizational tenure of 4.48 years (SD = 3.56)
ranged from 1 to 22. 56.2% of participants had bachelor degree, 30.9% had post-graduate degree, 7.9% had college education,
and 4.7% were high school graduates.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Protean career attitudes

Protean career attitudes were measured using the “Protean Career Attitudes Scale” (Briscoe et al., 2006). 8-items measured
self-directed career management. A sample item is “I am responsible for my success or failure in my career”. The Cronbach
alpha for this scale in the present study was .84. 6-items measured the values-driven career orientation. A sample item is “Free-
dom to choose my own career path is one of my most important values”. The Cronbach alpha for this scale in the present study
was .73. Responses were made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (to little or no extent) to 5 (to a great extent), was used to in-
dicate the extent of agreement with each item.

2.2.2. Boundaryless career attitudes

Boundaryless career attitudes were measured using the “Boundaryless Career Attitudes Scale” (Briscoe et al., 2006). 8-items
measured the boundaryless mindset. A sample item is “I like working with people outside of my organization.”. The Cronbach
alpha for this scale in the present study was .83. 5-items measured the organizational mobility preference. A sample item is “I pre-
fer to stay in a company I am familiar with rather than look for employment elsewhere.” (Reverse scored). The Cronbach alpha for
this scale in the present study was .78. Responses were made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (to little or no extent) to 5 (to a
great extent), was used to indicate the extent of agreement with each item.
The original protean and boundaryless career scales were constructed in English. Thus, these scales were translated into
Turkish. In-depth interviews were conducted with five Turkish employees from various organizations by the author to ensure
an accurate interpretation of the items. Subsequently, the translated scales were back translated into English by the author
using established techniques (Brislin, 1986) and adjusted again in the Turkish version based on feedback from the first author
of the original English version of the scales.

2.2.3. Organizational commitment

The three components of organizational commitment (affective, continuance, and normative) were measured using the
6-item scales (Meyer et al., 1993). Responses were made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). Sample items of these scales are “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization” (affective
commitment, Cronbach alpha = .91), “It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to”
(continuance commitment, Cronbach alpha = .82), and “This organization deserves my loyalty” (normative commitment,
Cronbach alpha = .87).

2.2.4. Perceived supervisor support

Perceived supervisor support on career development was measured using the 9-item scale (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, &
Wormley, 1990). A sample item is “My supervisor takes the time to learn about my career goals and aspirations”. The Cronbach
alpha for this scale in the present study was .95. Responses were made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree).
The measures for organizational commitment and perceived supervisor support scales were already used successfully in the
Turkish context (Wasti, 2003).
To gain general information about the respondents’ demographic and background characteristics such as gender, age, educa-
tion level, years of work experience, and organizational tenure were also collected.
642 K.Ö. Çakmak-Otluoğlu / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 638–646

3. Results

3.1. Validity test of protean and boundaryless career scales

The validity of the constructs of interest was tested using factor analysis. 14 items of the protean career attitudes scale and 13
items of boundaryless career attitudes scale were factor analyzed using principal axis factoring and direct oblimen rotation.
Exploratory factor analysis was performed to examine the factor structures of the protean and boundaryless career attitudes
scales and select the items with high factor loadings. (KMO = .85 for the protean career attitudes scale, and KMO = .82 for the
boundaryless career attitudes scale) indicated that the correlation matrixes were suitable for factor analysis. According to the re-
sults, three factors’ eigenvalues were greater than one for the protean career attitudes scale. When the solution was restricted to
two factors, the items clearly loaded on two separate factors (self-directed career management and values-driven orientation),
which explained 47.45% of total variance.
According to the results, two factors’ eigenvalues were greater than one for the boundaryless career attitudes scale. The items
clearly loaded on two separate factors (boundaryless mindset and organizational mobility preferences), which explained 50.79%
of total variance.
Consequently, the exploratory factor analyses demonstrate that the translated scales performed as expected and yielded sat-
isfactory results.

3.2. Tests of hypotheses

The hypothesized relationships were tested using correlations and hierarchical moderated regression analyses. Prior to ana-
lyses, seven outliers were removed from the study, their scores that ±3 standard deviations from the mean (Hair et al., 1998).
The theoretical assumptions underlying regression analysis were met. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of study vari-
ables are presented in Table 1.
First, the correlations revealed that organizational mobility preference was negatively related to all three components of or-
ganizational commitment (affective, continuance, and normative). Boundaryless mindset did not demonstrate a significant rela-
tionship with affective and normative commitment as expected, but also not with continuance commitment contrary to
expectations. Self-directed career management was positively related to affective commitment and negatively related to contin-
uance commitment. Values-driven career orientation was negatively related to only normative commitment.
To test the hypotheses, three hierarchical moderated regression analyses were carried out. Four steps specified for each de-
pendent variable in the analyses (affective, continuance, and normative commitment). Gender, educational level, age, and orga-
nizational tenure were entered as control variables in the first step. The main effects of boundaryless and protean career attitudes
were entered in the second step and the main effect of perceived supervisor support was entered in the third step. Finally in the
fourth step, the interaction terms were entered. In line with Aiken and West (1991), independent and moderator variables were
centered before creating the interaction term. The results of hierarchical moderated regression analyses are presented in Table 2.
In the first hierarchical moderated regression analysis, affective commitment regressed on the protean and boundaryless ca-
reer attitudes, using the moderator variable of perceived supervisor support. The results showed that gender, educational level,
age, and organizational tenure as control variables did not contribute significantly to the prediction of affective commitment
(ΔR² = .01, p > .05). When the protean and boundaryless career attitudes added in the second step, the model became significant
(ΔR² = .21, p b .001) Boundaryless mindset and values-driven career orientation did not demonstrate statistically significant rela-
tionship with affective commitment as expected, although the significant positive relationship between self-directed career

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of study variables.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1—Gender – – –
2—Education level – – −.02 –
3—Age 30.30 4.61 −.16** −.04 –
4—Org.tenure 4.45 3.54 −.06 −.21** .54** –
5—Self-directed career man. 3.75 .63 −.07 .04 −.10 −.15** –
6—Values-driven car. orien. 3.64 .63 .17** .03 .05 −.03 .49** –
7—Bound. mindset 3.56 .67 .01 .13* −.09 −.09 .40** .24** –
8—Org.mobility preference 3.22 .81 .07 .12* −.11* −.11 .10 .22** .10 –
9—Affective commitment 3.32 .85 −.09 −.07 .05 .04 .11* −.08 .06 −.44** –
10—Continuance commitment 2.74 .77 −.04 −.18** .13 .28** −.16** −.07 −.08 −.27** .05 –
11—Normative commitment 2.93 .81 −.07 −.07 .05 .02 .05 −.15** −.01 −.45** .61** .19** –
12—Perceived supervisor support 2.93 1.01 .02 .01 −.18** −.18** .15** .06 .15** −.18** .39** −.01 .38** –

N = 373, *p b .05, **p b .01, Gender; 0 = Male, 1 = Female, Education Level; 0 = College education and high school graduates, 1 = bachelor and post-graduate
degree.
 K.Ö. Çakmak-Otluoğlu / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 638–646 643

Table 2
Results of hierarchical moderated regression analysis.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Affective commitment
Gender −.08 −.03 −.03 −.03
Educational level −.07 −.03 −.03 −.03
Age .04 .02 .07 .06
Org. tenure .00 .00* .04 .04
Self-directed car. man. .17** .15** .14**
Values-driven car. orien. −.08 −.10 −.09
Bound. mindset .06 .02 .03
Org. mobility preference −.44*** −.36*** −.36***
Perceived supervisor sup. .32*** .31***
Self-dir. car. × per. supervisor support −.07
Val. driven car. × per. supervisor support .02
Bound. mindset × per. supervisor support .08
Org. mob. pre. × per. supervisor support −.01
Δ R² .01 .21*** .09*** .01

Continuance commitment
Gender −.03 −.04 −.04 −.05
Educational level −.12* −.10* −.10* −.10
Age −.02 −.05 −.05 −.04
Org. tenure .26*** .23*** .23*** .24***
Self-directed car. man. −.14* −.14* −.14*
Values-driven car. orien. .07 .07 .06
Bound. mindset .01 .02 .00
Org. mobility preference −.24*** −.24*** −.23
Perceived supervisor sup. −.01 .00
Self-dir. car. × per. supervisor support .12
Val. driven car. × per. supervisor support −.02
Bound. mindset × per. supervisor support −.09
Org. mob. pre. × per. supervisor support −.05
Δ R² .09*** .07*** .00 .02

Normative commitment
Gender −.06 .00 .00 −.00
Educational level −.07 −.02 −.02 −.02
Age .05 .04 .08 .07
Org. tenure −.03 −.03 .00 .01
Self-directed car. man. .17** .14** .14*
Values-driven car. orien. −.14* −.16** −.15**
Bound. mindset .00 −.03 −.02
Org. mobility preference −.43*** −.36*** −.36***
Perceived supervisor sup. .32*** .30***
Self-dir. car. × per. supervisor support −.11
Val. driven car. × per. supervisor support .07
Bound. mindset × per. supervisor support .09
Org. mob. pre. × per. supervisor support −.04
Δ R² .01 .22*** .09*** .19

management and affective commitment is noteworthy (B = .17, p b .01). Organizational mobility preference, on the other hand,
was negatively related to affective commitment (B = −.44, p b .001).
In the second hierarchical moderated regression analysis where continuance commitment was predicted, gender, educational
level, age, and organizational tenure as control variables contributed significantly to the prediction of continuance commitment
(ΔR² = .09, p b .001). Educational level was negatively (B = −.12, p b .05) and organizational tenure was positively related to con-
tinuance commitment (B = .26, p b .001). According to the results, only organizational mobility preference (B = −.24, p b .001)
and self-directed career management were negatively related to continuance commitment (B = −.14, p b .05). However, bound-
aryless mindset and values-driven career orientation were found to be non-significant.
With regard to normative commitment, as indicated in the third hierarchical moderated regression analysis gender, educa-
tional level, age, and organizational tenure, as control variables did not contribute significantly to the prediction of normative
commitment (ΔR² = .01, p > .05). When the protean and boundaryless career attitudes added in the second step, the model
became significant (ΔR² = .22, p b .001). Boundaryless mindset was found to be non-significant. Contrary to expectations, self-
directed career management and values-driven career orientation were significant predictors of normative commitment. Self-
directed career management was positively (B = .14, p b .01) and values-driven career orientation was negatively related to
normative commitment (B = −.16, p b .01). Organizational mobility preference was also negatively related to normative commit-
ment (B = −.43 p b .001).
644 K.Ö. Çakmak-Otluoğlu / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 638–646

Self-directed career management and values-driven career orientation were the only variables that were negatively related to
continuance commitment. However, there were no significant evidence provided for a moderating effect of perceived supervisor
support (ΔR² = .02, p > .05).
As seen in Table 2, there were no significant evidence provided for a moderating effect of perceived supervisor support
(ΔR² = .01, p > .05), (ΔR² = .01, p > .05), although perceived supervisor support yielded significant main effects on affective
(B = .32, p b .001) and normative commitment (B = .32, p b .001).

4. Discussion

All hypotheses indicating the negative relationships between organizational mobility preference and the three components of
organizational commitment were supported. It seems reasonable that individuals’ emotional attachments or obligations to re-
main with the organization are affected negatively by organizational mobility preference. Individuals who are high in organiza-
tional mobility preference like the predictability that comes with working continuously for the same organization. Thus, it can
be said that continuance commitment, which reflects employees’ perceptions of costs of leaving the organization, is an antithesis
of organizational mobility preference.
The results highlight that boundaryless mindset is related to none of the organizational commitment components. This is fas-
cinating and demonstrates that in a fashion very similar to what operates in the Western context (Briscoe & Finkelstein, 2009), a
boundaryless mindset co-exists with organizational commitment and does not necessarily equate with mobility.
Even though I do not advance any single hypotheses with regard to the relationships between self-directed career manage-
ment and two components of organizational commitment (affective and normative commitment), it is found that self-directed
career management is positively related to affective and normative commitment in the present study. Individuals who are high
in self-directed career management take an independent role in managing their vocational behaviors and are responsible for
their success or failure in their careers (Briscoe et al., 2006). This means that self-direction in career management indicates an
internal locus of control. Thus, the positive relationship between self-directed career management and affective commitment
may be due to the reason that the individuals with internal locus of control are more committed affectively to their organizations
because they perceive that they have control over their work environments (Luthans, Baack, & Taylor, 1987). Moreover, the pos-
itive relationship between self-directed career management and normative commitment is fascinating. Despite the fact that self-
direction in career management implies an independent nature, it could be expected that individuals with self-directedness
would be less normatively committed to their organizations.
The results also show that self-directed career management is negatively related to continuance commitment. Individuals who
have high levels of continuance commitment are likely to remain in their organizations because of a necessity, although they feel
stuck. This seems counter to self-directed career management.
The significant negative relationship between values-driven career management and normative commitment is noteworthy,
even though I do not advance a hypothesis with regard to this relationship. Wiener (1982) argued that normatively committed
employees feel responsible for making personal sacrifices for the sake of the organization because they “believe it is the ‘right’
and moral thing to do.”. Contrary to normative commitment, values-driven career management indicates the priority of personal
values and choices in career instead of the employer's. Considering this finding, it can be asserted that individuals who are not
clear on their own values tend to be more committed normatively to their organizations.
The study investigated the moderating effect of perceived supervisor support on the relationships between protean and
boundaryless career attitudes and organizational commitment. Counter to expectations, it does not have a moderating effect
on these relationships. Perceived supervisor support has only a main effect on affective and normative commitment in the present
study. Thus, all hypotheses related to moderating effect of supervisor support on these relationships were rejected. The reason
might be that employees with protean and boundaryless career attitudes are more internally-driven and are less likely concerned
with support on their careers carried out by their supervisors. Future research could benefit from using internally-driven moder-
ating effects.
An additional contribution of this study was that protean and boundaryless career models were tested in Turkey, which is the
first use of these scales in a non-Western context, to the author's knowledge. As a result of the factor analyses of protean and
boundaryless career attitudes scales, two factors (self-directed career management and values-driven career orientation for pro-
tean career, boundaryless mindset and organizational mobility preference for boundaryless career) were found to be consistent
with the Western context (Briscoe et al., 2006). Thus, these analyses indicated that the translated scales perform as expected
and that they can be successfully utilize in a non-Western context generally or at least in Turkey specifically.
The main practical implication of this study is that boundaryless mindset is found to be non-significant to all components of
organizational commitment. This finding, which replicates the study of Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009), shows that organiza-
tions should be aware that a boundaryless mindset can co-exist with organizational commitment and does not necessarily
equate with mobility. Also, the positive relationships between self-directed career management and affective and normative
commitment are noteworthy. Due to the fact that affective and normative commitments have the strongest relationships
with desirable work-related outcomes (Meyer et al., 2002), organizations should not have concerns about their employees’
self-directedness. Moreover, the results confirm the importance of supervisor support on affective and normative commitment.
Supervisor support including giving helpful feedback about the subordinates’ performance, keeping subordinates informed
about different career opportunities in the organization, and supporting subordinates’ attempts to acquire additional training
or education to further their careers may help organizations in order to foster organizational commitment of the employees.
 K.Ö. Çakmak-Otluoğlu / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 638–646 645

Thus, it can be asserted that supervisors who demonstrate care about their subordinates’ career development will generate pos-
itive outcomes.
The findings of the present study should be taken into consideration in light of a few limitations. Self-reported cross-sectional
data is one limitation. Although all hypotheses were proposed based on evidence shown in the literature, it is not possible to as-
sert causal relationships among the variables due to the lack of a longitudinal design. Second, the study was conducted in Turkey,
a non-Western context. Even though Turkey's relations with the West have increased especially after the full membership nego-
tiations with European Union, it has still close political, economic, and industrial relations with the Middle East. The results there-
fore should be considered taking into account of this non-Western context. Third, there is the possibility of reverse causality due
to the cross-sectional nature of the data. Fourth, the primary interest of the study was in individual perceptions of predictors. Fu-
ture research could benefit from using objective moderating effects. Fifth, the data was collected from 68 different organizations.
This might lead to heterogeneity in the data as concerns organizational context that highly impact on perceived supervisor sup-
port and organizational commitment.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuous, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 49, 252–276.
Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A new perspective for organizational inquiry. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 295–306.
Briscoe, J. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2009). The “new career” and organizational commitment: Do boundaryless and protean career attitudes make a difference?
Career Development International, 14, 242–260.
Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (2006). The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers: Combinations and implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 4–18.
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.
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lohner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research
(pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Brousseau, et al. (1996). Career pandemonium: Realigning organizations and individuals. The Academy of Management Executive, 10, 52–66.
Cohen, A. (2007). Commitment before and after: An evaluation and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 7,
336–354.
De Filippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A competency-based perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 307–324.
De Vos, A., & Soens, N. (2008). Protean attitude and career success: The mediating role of self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 449–456.
Eisenberger, R., et al. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 565–573.
Enache, et al. (2009). Can organizational commitment be experienced by individuals pursuing contemporary career paths? Academy of Management Annual
Meetings: Chicago, Illinois.
Fisher, C. D. (1985). Social support and adjustment to work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management, 11, 39–53.
Gasteiger, R. M., & Briscoe, J. P. (2007). What kind of organizations do protean people prefer? The case of Germany and United States. Academy of Management
Annual Meetings: Philadelphia.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64–86.
Hair, J. F., et al. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.
Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
Hall, D. T. (1996). Protean careers of the 21st century. The Academy of Management Executive, 10, 8–16.
Hall, D. T. (2002). Careers in and out of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 1–13.
Hall, D. T., & Moss, J. E. (1998). The new protean career contract: Helping organizations and employees adapt. Organizational Dynamics, 22–37.
Inkson, K. (2006). Protean and boundaryless careers as metaphors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 48–63.
Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2005). Does supporting employees’ career adaptability lead to commitment, turnover, or both? Human Resource Management, 44,
5–19.
Kidd, J. M., & Smewing, C. (2001). The role of supervisor in career and organizational commitment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10,
25–40.
Kinicki, A. J., & Vecchio, R. P. (1994). Influences on the quality of supervisor–subordinate relations: The role of time–pressure, organizational commitment, and
locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 75–82.
Ko, J. W., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and Allen's three component model of organizational commitment in South Korea. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 961–973.
Luthans, F., Baack, D., & Taylor, L. (1987). Organizational commitment: Analysis of antecedents. Human Relations, 40, 4219–4235.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological
Bulletin, 108, 171–194.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1987). A longitudinal analysis of the early development and consequences of organizational commitment. Canadian Journal of Behavioral
Science, 19, 199–205.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three component conceptualization. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, L. J., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2012). Employee commitment in context: The nature and implication of commitment profiles. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 80, 1–6.
Meyer, et al. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.
Mirvis, P. H., & Hall, D. T. (1996). Psychological success and the boundaryless career. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 365–380.
Payne, S. C., & Huffman, A. H. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the influence of mentoring on organizational commitment and turnover. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 48, 158–168.
Pringle, J., & Mallon, M. (2003). Challenges for the boundaryless career odyssey. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 839–853.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Segers, J., et al. (2008). Protean and boundaryless careers: A study on potential motivators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 212–230.
Solinger, O., Van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 70–83.
646 K.Ö. Çakmak-Otluoğlu / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 638–646

Sturges, J., Guest, D., & Davey, K. M. (2000). Who's in charge? Graduates’ attitudes to and experiences of career management and their relationships with orga-
nizational commitment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9, 351–370.
Sullivan, S. E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 25, 457–484.
Sullivan, S. E., & Arthur, M. B. (2006). The evaluation of the boundaryless career concept: Examining physical and psychological mobility. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 69, 19–29.
Sullivan, S. E., & Baruch, Y. (2009). Advances in career theory and research: A critical review and agenda for future exploration. Journal of Management, 35,
1542–1571.
Sullivan, S. E., Carden, W. A., & Martin, D. F. (1998). Careers in the next new millennium: Directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 8,
165–185.
Wallace, J. E. (1997). Becker's side-bet theory of commitment revisited: Is it time for a moratorium or a resurrection? Human Relations, 50, 727–749.
Wasti, A. (2003). The influence of cultural values on antecedents of organizational commitment: An individual-level analysis. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 52, 533–554.
Wiener (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418–428.
Zaleska, K. J., & Menezes, L. M. (2009). Human resources development practices and their association with employee attitudes: Between traditional and new
careers. Human Relations, 60, 987–1010.