442 German

undergraduate
students. Study 2
replicates these
relationships among a
sample of 100 early

Career mobility in young professionals career professionals

who graduated with a

How a protean career personality and attitude shapes diploma in psychology.

Findings – Results
international mobility and entrepreneurial intentions indicate that for the
sample of
Martin Mabunda Baluku undergraduate
students, flexibility and
career orientation were
positively related to
expatriation intention.
However, the
mediation path was
non-significant. On the
other hand, personal
initiative and career
orientation were
essential for
entrepreneurial
intentions, with a
significant mediation
path. For the early
career professionals in
contrast, only
flexibility turned out to
be resourceful for both
expatriation and
entrepreneurial
intentions.
Practical implications –
Suggestions for
supporting early career
professionals to
develop interest in
working abroad or in
entrepreneurship are
provided. Particularly,
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, the results indicate that
Philipps-Universitat Marburg Fachbereich Psychologie, Marbug, Germany and protean traits affect
mobility intentions
Department of Educational, Social, and Organizational Psychology, differently. To
Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda strengthen intentions
for expatriation work,
Dorothee Löser attention should be
Department of Human Resources, Deloitte Consulting GmbH, Berlin, paid enhancing the
Germany, and ability for staying
flexible when it comes
Kathleen Otto and Steffen Erik Schummer to career choices. This
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, applies to both
undergraduate students
Philipps-Universitat Marburg Fachbereich Psychologie, Marbug, Germany and early career
professionals.
Abstract However, a strong
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of protean-related traits and attitudes in the career orientation is
development of international mobility (expatriation) and entrepreneurial intentions among early career also essential to the
professionals. Career mobility is of increasing relevance to achieving career success in the era of protean development of
and boundaryless careers, and in the present day highly globalized labor market. International mobility expatriation intention
provides opportunities for work in organizations (corporate expatriation) as well as in entrepreneurship among current
(expat entrepreneurship).
Design/methodology/approach – This paper reports two studies examining the role of “protean career
personality,” conceptualized as consisting of personal initiative and flexibility on entrepreneurial and
expatriation intention, looking at career orientation attitude as the mediating mechanism. In study 1, the
impact of personal initiative and flexibility on the two career mobility paths is explored using a sample of
students. On the other hand, enhancing proactivity could strengthen entrepreneurial intention among
undergraduate students.
Originality/value – This study applies protean-related traits and attitudes; and how they work together in the
development of mobility intentions among undergraduate students and early career professionals. The study
reveals differential roles of these traits and attitudes among these groups, with regard to expatriation and
entrepreneurship. This is important for career guidance. Journal of Global Mobility
© Emerald Publishing Limited
Keywords Entrepreneurial intentions, Expatriation, Career orientation, Protean career, Flexibility, 2049-8799 DOI 10.1108/JGM-
Career mobility, International mobility, Personal initiative 10-2017-0041

Introduction
Flexibility has
Received 8 October 2017
Revised 12 December 2017
8 January 2018 Accepted 8 January
2018
been emphasized in recent research as an
Paper type Research paper important attribute that fosters career Career mobility in young
professionalsdevelopment and success (Arthur, 2014;
JGM

ux et al., 2013; Lent and Brown, 2013). Sticking to one’s learned trade is no longer fashionable
since aths have become less systematic (Arnold, 2001; Baruch, 2004). It is conceived that career
paths have nonlinear and discontinuous, and with more forces coming into play in labor market
and career ment, individuals are now required to take more control of their career
development n, 1999; Sullivan and Baruch, 2009). The labor market today is
grossly affected by technological ment and globalization (Lent and Brown, 2013). These and other
economic factors have made ment more precarious. Consequently, those nearing graduation from
school face the challenges of ed and uncertain school-to-work transition periods. The newly
graduated face a challenge of competition ting job openings. Moreover, they compete with highly
trained and experienced individuals since many ers still pay attention to human capital (Hatch and
Dyer, 2004). These factors limit employment nities available to new graduates; hence, a protean
approach could be useful such that individuals can in mobility behaviors to further their career
development. Career mobility is a feasible alternative in globalized and increasingly service-
driven economy. This alternative presents two work opportunities; tion and entrepreneurship.
There is also possibility of combining both mobility alternatives; that is tes who are engaged
entrepreneurship (expatriate entrepreneurship) (Vance et al., 2016).
The boundarylessness and protean nature of careers today demands that
individuals become more flexible and adaptive to best manage their career
development (Briscoe and Hall, 2006; Hall, 1996; Lent and Brown, 2013) to work
even in unfamiliar environments. Moreover, the dynamics of labor market
characterized by job insecurity, increased demand for services, high unemployment
rates necessitate that individuals should be willing to consider non-traditional
employment such as self-employment. Both expatriation and entrepreneurship not
only provide opportunities for early career professionals to work towards achieving
autonomy and career progress (Frändberg, 2015), they are important for long-term
social and economic development through new business developments and
knowledge spillover effects (Vance et al., 2016). It is already well researched that
entrepreneurship is an important contributor to economic development (Fritsch and
Wyrwich, 2014; Williams et al., 2013). Similarly, expatriation makes valuable
contribution to hosting organizations and economies (Al Ariss and Crowley-Henry,
2013; Dickmann and Baruch, 2011).
Career mobility has been widely studied in terms of working abroad, which is
propelled by either immigration or self-initiated expatriation (Al Ariss and Crowley-
Henry, 2013). However, expatriation from developed to developing countries; and
between developed countries seems to be on a downward trajectory (Selmer, 2017)
despite globalization and other challenges in the labor market. Other forms of career
mobility involve movement to new positions or transition to another occupation. An
increasingly attractive form of geographical career mobility is expat entrepreneurship
(Basaiawmoit, 2013; Vance et al., 2016). The present study does not examine this
phenomenon; it is assumed that since young professionals are increasingly willing to
go abroad as business expatriates, expatriation and entrepreneurial intentions could
therefore be predicted by the same protean attributes. The career profiles based on
 Career m
in
profess
value and mobility dimensions of protean and boundaryless careers (Briscoe and
Hall, 2006) suggest that geographical mobility and transition into business can
reinforce each other; and can therefore have similar predictors.
The present study sought to examine the willingness of undergraduate students
and early career professionals to expatriate or start their own businesses. We describe
a protean career personality in terms of flexibility and personal initiative; which are
essential for
protean career behaviors given that individuals with protean career orientation prefer
to direct their careers (Hall, 1996). We thus test for effect of this protean career
personality on expatriation and entrepreneurial intentions. Briscoe and Hall (2006)
argue that a person’s career orientation is shaped by a career mindset. This suggests
that career orientation might be the mechanism through which protean traits affect
mobility intentions and behaviors. We
therefore test whether the effects of protean traits on mobility intentions are mediated by career
orientation.

The protean career personality

The paper focuses on the association between protean traits (personal initiative and flexibility) on
mobility intentions (specifically expatriation and entrepreneurial intentions). We argue that these two
mobility behaviors are typically protean in nature. Specifically, selfinitiated expatriation reflect
individual’s proactivity (Selmer et al., 2017) in managing their careers; and expatriation is frequently
being used by young professionals to enhance career development (Dickmann, 2017). We, therefore,
suggest that early career professionals with high levels of personal initiative and flexibility; as well as
career orientation are likely to be more ready to engage in these mobility behaviors.
It has been suggested that twenty-first century careers will be “protean” (Briscoe and Hall, 2006;
Inkson, 2006), meaning that they will be driven by individuals, rather than by organizations. Self-
initiated expatriation and voluntary entry into entrepreneurship are therefore expressions of protean
career behaviors. Based on the person-fit perspective, we hypothesize that individuals characterized by
a protean personality and attitude are more likely to consider expatriation or entrepreneurial career
paths or both (expatriate entrepreneurship). Findings of research from the field of person environment
fit indicate that career functioning is best when there is a good fit, and moreover is a determinant of
stability in the career path (Holland, 1996). From this perspective, individuals choose work
environments as a result of many different factors, including their attitudes, values, abilities,
personality, and job characteristics, as well as factors relating to organizational structure and culture
(Van Vianen, 2000). Selection of a career path based on congruence between these personal and work-
related factors enhance likelihoods of success and satisfaction (Holland, 1996, 1997). Yet the selected
environments further reinforce abilities and interests, hence facilitating success and persistence in the
chosen career path. This also applies to expatriates; previous research suggests that a combination of
individual and contextual factors affect success of expatriates (Kubra et al., 2015).
Perceived congruence between person and work environment factors; and the
expected success that follows this fit; have been shown to affect career selection
( Johnson and Birkeland, 2003; Spokane et al., 2000). This indicates a higher
readiness for a given career path. Hence, it can be expected that there are some
people who are overall more ready to think about a job abroad or in business than
others based on their personal characteristics and their perceived suitability to these
career paths. Based on Holland’s theory of vocational personalities (Holland, 1996,
1997), person environment fit application to career research has emphasized the role
of personality on career selection. From recent career literature emphasizing self-
management and adaptability as requirements for contemporary careers (Arthur,
2014; Hamtiaux et al., 2013; Lent and Brown, 2013; Lent et al., 2016), we focus on
two personal characteristics (rather personal competences), namely personal
initiative and flexibility. We posit that these two traits describe what we label
“protean personality,” which are important for career paths in expatriate work or
entrepreneurship. This is in line with
JGM
Briscoe and Hall (2006) definition highlighting that protean careers involve two aspects; individual’s internal
values and self-direction in one’s career management. These aspects indicate that career direction and success
are partly dependent on a person’s values and adaptability in career-related matters including decisions, choices,
and activities.
These two aspects emphasize the role of personal initiative and flexibility to career management; and we
therefore argue in the present study that they are predisposing factors to readiness for mobility (to expatriate or
become an entrepreneur) as indicated in our hypothesized model (see Figure 1).

Personal initiative
Personal initiative is both theoretically and practically significant for career management, including achieving
success in the labor market and dealing with challenging career situations (Frese and Fay, 2001; Frese et al.,
1997). Its relevance to the protean career concept is embodied in goal-directed behaviors such as proactivity
and self-starting, persistence, and long-term focus (Fay and Frese, 2001; Frese et al., 1996, 1997). The aspects
of being proactive and self-staring could especially be important for self-initiated expatriation; which involves
individuals seeking work abroad on their own initiative (Selmer et al., 2017). Accordingly, initiating an
expatriation process by oneself demonstrates a proactive approach, which is the core facet of the personal
initiative trait (Fay and Frese, 2001). Such expatriates engage in activities including gathering information
about relevant job opportunities abroad, selecting a country, and undertaking the tedious process of convincing
possible employers and navigating the immigration process (Selmer et al., 2017), which are largely facilitated
by personal initiative. We therefore posit that undergraduate students as well as early career professionals who
possess high levels of the personal initiative trait are likely to report higher intention to work abroad.
Concerning entrepreneurial intentions, personal initiative is closely linked to the concept of
entrepreneurship, since entrepreneurial activities require creative and active capabilities (Frese et al., 1997;
Solomon et al., 2013). This is in line with Holland’s description of enterprising individuals and the nature of
careers that they thrive in (Holland, 1997). Consequently, it is expected that individuals with initiative
competence would be attracted to and succeed in entrepreneurship (Frese and Fay, 2001; Frese et al., 1997;
Glaub et al., 2014; Rooks et al., 2016). Moreover, a related personality construct, proactive personality, has
been found to predict entrepreneurial intention in several studies (e.g. Crant, 1996; Dell and Amadu, 2015;
Prabhu et al., 2012).
The innovative and creative requirements of entrepreneurship are likely pull factors for individuals with high
personal initiative trait to engage in entrepreneurial activities. We therefore expect that personal initiative
predicts intention to engage in business. If this hypothesis is true, then low levels of initiative would be a fitting
explanation of relatively low levels of entrepreneurship that was previously observed in some parts of Germany.
Literature indicates that particularly in parts of East Germany, initiative was for some time perceived as bad
thing and often punished (Frese et al., 1997). Based on this literature, Hossiep and Paschen (1998) categorize
flexibility as an important vocational trait (see: Bochumer Inventory for work-based personality description,
Business-focused Inventory of Personality (BIP)). In the discourse of career development in the twenty-first
century, scholars have advocated for flexibility and adaptability for increased chances of career success.
Accordingly, malleability in decision making enables individuals to manage career transitions and cope with
changes in conditions (Hartung et al., 2008; Koen et al., 2012; Lent and Brown, 2013). Thus adaptability
becomes an important predictor of career success (Zacher, 2014), but also the readiness to try new career
possibilities when required; for example during school-to-work transitions (Koen et al., 2012) or re-
employment after job loss coping (Koen et al., 2010).
Regarding mobility, flexibility facilitates coping with tasks and conditions during expatriation (Baruch et al.,
2016; Briscoe and Hall, 2006; Tung, 1982). Flexibility enhances openness to situations, including new cultures
which do not only increase adaptation but also willingness to work in new places (Froese et al., 2013).
Literature also suggests that flexibility can shape the direction of career (Briscoe and Hall, 2006), thus the
 Career m
in
profess
potential to influence an individual’s career path. In relation to expatriation, there is remarkable increase in self-
initiated expatriation (Baruch et al., 2016; Bozionelos, 2009; Doherty et al., 2013). This indicates willingness to
expatriate; hence suggesting that some individuals seem to be more ready to work abroad.
Similarly, success in entrepreneurial roles requires high level of flexibility for effective functioning in the
highly dynamic business environment; facilitating learning from experiences and adaptability in business
decisions and actions (Haynie et al., 2010). Yet this adaptability has been found to relate to entrepreneurial
intentions in some populations (Urban, 2012). From the person environment fit theories, particularly Holland’s
typology of career environments (Holland, 1997), flexible work trait fits with the requirements of both
entrepreneurial and expatriation roles, hence we expect that flexibility will predict both intentions to expatriate
and go engage entrepreneurial activity:
H2a. Flexibility work trait is positively related to expatriation intention.
H2b. Flexibility work trait is positively related to entrepreneurial intention.

Career attitudes as mediating link

People choose certain careers or transition from one career to another for different reasons, which Schein
(1996) labeled as career anchors. From the taxonomy of eight anchors (Schein, 1996), it is observed that at least
three, including autonomy, dedication, and pure challenge are situated in the concept of values and attitudes
(Rodrigues et al., 2013). This illustrates the importance of attitudes in understanding career interests and
choices. Lent et al. (1994) also demonstrate the essentiality of attitudes in understanding career interests and
choices. They define attitudes in terms of likes, dislikes, and indifference; hence, the career interests are a
subject matter of attitudes, which eventually influence choices. Expatriation and entrepreneurship studies have
shown the impact of attitudes on intention and on actual behavior (e.g. Douglas and Shepherd, 2002; Fayolle
and Gailly, 2015; Froese et al., 2013). In the present study, we focus on one such attitude that is important to
protean and boundaryless careers, namely career orientation.
Career orientation attitude is largely reflected in the expression of career ambition (Otto et al., 2017) and
denotes the resolute desire to attain one’s vocational goals (Maier et al., 2009). This approach of understanding
career orientation particularly emphasizes the preference for intrinsic over extrinsic rewards from the career
activities (Simpson, 2005) in line with self-determination perspective (Deci and Ryan, 2000, 2008). We
presume that this desire might constrain or enhance the intention to expatriate or become an entrepreneur, or
both ( for those who want to become expat entrepreneurs). Stumpf (2014) argues that individuals use mobility
to advance their career success. Towards this regard, we argue that expatriation, which involves professionals
offering their expertise to foreign organizations and governments (Al Ariss and Crowley-Henry, 2013) is an
opportunity for career success. Recent trends in expatriation also reveal that early career professionals are
currently motivated for expatriate work mostly for purposes that are related to career growth; that is, individuals
will accept or reject international assignments in relation to how it will impact on their career (Dickmann,
2017). Especially, they seem to be driven by the need to strengthen their social capital through creating an
international professional network (Dickmann, 2017). We therefore posit that individuals with high career
orientation are likely to have positive attitudes towards working abroad; thus possess a higher readiness for
expatriate work.
Still based on the idea that career orientation is an expression of need for achievement in career (Otto et al.,
2017), we argue that individuals with high career orientation are likely to have higher entrepreneurial
intentions. Previous research has consistently found that achievement motivation is one of the psychological
attributes that motivate entrepreneurial behavior (Hansemark, 2003; Johnson, 1990; Wu et al., 2007). In
JGM
addition, Hall (1996) contends that individuals’ career behaviors are increasingly driven by psychological rather
than economic benefits. Psychological outcomes of work such as satisfaction and well-being have been reported
to be high among the self-employed or entrepreneurs compared to their counterparts in salaried employment
(Benz and Frey, 2008; Binder and Coad, 2013).
Moreover, some professions such as medicine, psychology, engineering, information technology, and many
others do offer good entrepreneurship opportunities that are professionally related in form of innovations,
consulting, and freelancing. Based on this literature, we hypothesize that:
H3a. Career orientation is positively related to expatriation intention.
H3b. Career orientation is positively related to entrepreneurial intention.
The socio-cognitive approach highlights a triadic interaction of contextual, personal and cognitive factors in
influencing career behaviors (Lent et al., 2000; Lent et al., 1994). On this foundation, they propose that
cognitive processes mediate the impact of personal and socialization factors on subsequent career behavior.
Thus, we hypothesize that career orientation attitude mediates the impact of personal initiative and flexibility
traits on expatriation and entrepreneurial intentions. Lent et al. (1994) illustrate the mediational role of attitudes
by defining career interests in terms of likes, dislikes and indifference; which develop from interactions with
the environment. Attitudes are often treated as a mediator in expatriation and entrepreneurship studies (e.g.
Froese et al., 2013; Kautonen et al., 2011). Following this idea, we therefore expect that a protean personality
predisposes individuals to be high on career orientation, which in turn may shape the development of career
mobility intentions whether to expatriate or become an entrepreneur:
H4a. Career orientation mediates the effect of personal initiative on expatriation intention. H4b. Career
orientation mediates the effect of personal initiative on
entrepreneurial intention.
H4c. Career orientation mediates the effect of flexibility work trait on expatriation intention.
H4d. Career orientation mediates the effect of flexibility work trait on entrepreneurial intention.

Empirical studies
Two studies were conducted in Germany to test our hypotheses. In study 1, we selected a sample of
undergraduate students across a range of disciplines who at time of data assessment were enrolled as full-time
university students. For study 2, we used a sample of early career professionals who successfully managed to
enter the labor market. All of them had graduated with a diploma in psychology.

Study 1: undergraduates during their training period

Sample and procedure
Data from 442 German undergraduate students aged between 18 and 54 years (M ¼ 23.05; SD ¼ 3.50) were
gathered via an online survey. The sample consisted of 167 business management students (47.9 percent male),
161 psychology students (14.3 percent male), and 114 students of engineering and natural science (77.2 percent
male). With respect to prior experiences, 128 students had been abroad for more than three months, and 94.6
percent had changed their location at least once (M ¼ 2.19; SD ¼ 1.92). Only 3.6 percent had parental duties to
fulfill, and 38.2 percent were in a partnership or married.

Research instruments
 Career m
in
profess
For all items measured, a six-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) was used. The
scales are described below.
Career mobility. Expatriation intentions were assessed using the four most valid items of a scale to measu
geographic mobility readiness by Dalbert and Otto (2004). Note the original scale was modified in a way that all items were no
related to the context of foreign countries (α¼ 0.86; e.g. “I can easily image myself working for a limited time abroad.”). To asses
entrepreneurial intentions we selected the four most valid items from a scale to measure entrepreneurial mobility readiness by Glas
and Dalbert (2004; α¼ 0.90; e.g. “To set up a business of my own is part of my professional goals”).
Protean career mindset. We identified two personality concepts relevant for protean career development,
namely adaptability (Hall, 2002) and self-directedness (Briscoe and Hall, 2006) and assessed these using work-
based flexibility and personal initiative. Personal initiative was assessed with 7 items (Frese et al., 1997; α¼
0.78; e.g. “Whenever there is a chance to get actively involved, I take it.”). Flexibility was gathered with the 14
items of the flexibility subscale of theBIP (Hossiep and Paschen, 1998; α¼ 0.83; e.g. “I perceive it as a
challenge when I am confronted with unforeseeable situations”).
Career attitudes. Career orientation was measured using a scale from the German General Social Survey
(Koch et al., 1994) which comprised 4 items (α¼ 0.75; e.g. “To be successful in my profession is very
important to me”).

Analytic strategy and pre-analysis

Latent-variable structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS (Arbuckle, 2012) was used for testing the
hypotheses separately for the two samples. Baron and Kenny (1986) argue that SEM is an adequate method to
analyze mediation paths. To test H1a-b and H2a-b, we built a model with no mediation through career
orientation (M0). Furthermore, we adapted a two-step procedure introduced by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) to
test our proposed mediation model with the mediator career orientation (see Figure 1).
First, we tested if the measurement model was fundamentaly misspecified by employing a pseudo χ² test. In
particular, we related the χ² value of the confirmatory measurement model, also known as saturated structural
model (M1a) that included all latent constructs (i.e. personal initiative and flexibility as independent variables,
and entrepreneurial intentions and expatriate intentions as dependent variables). The model also included the
observed constructs (i.e. career orientation, age, and gender) and all possible parameters relating those
constructs to the dfs of a null structural model (M 1b) that included the same constructs but without any
parameters relating those constructs. We recognized that χ²/df values ⩽ 3 indicate that a structural model nested
in M0 exists with an acceptable goodness of fit. The observed variables were included in the measurement
model to ensure that the subsequent structural equation models were nested to this measurement model. Sex
and age were introduced as controls since former research show that individual characteristics impact on
mobility intentions (Tekleselassie and Villarreal, 2011). We randomly assigned the items to two parcels for each
latent constructs in order to avoid the pitfalls of assessing the latent constructs with multiple items (Little et al.,
2002).
Second, we continued the two-step approach by testing if a less or a more constrained alternative model
fitted the data better than our proposed model (M 2a) with sequential χ² difference tests and the decision-tree
framework proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). In particular, since our proposed model constrained
only one parameter more than the saturated structural model (M 1a), the saturated structural model was the only
possible less constrained model. As the more constrained model we used a mediation model similar to our
proposed model, but without a direct effect of personal initiative on expatriate intentions
(M2b).
JGM
Furthermore, we estimated the adequacy of the measurement and structural models by examining the χ² in
relation to its degrees of freedom ( χ²/df), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), the comparative-fit-index (CFI), and the Tucker-Lewis-Index
(TLI). We recognized χ²/df values ⩽3 (Kline, 2004), RMSEA values ⩽0.07 (Steiger, 2007), SRMR values
⩽0.09, CFI values ⩾0.95 (Hu and Bentler, 1999) and TLI values ⩾0.90 (Bentler and Bonett, 1980) as indicative
for an adequate fit.
Possible mediation effects were examined using bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals for the
indirect effects, since it has several advantages over Baron and Kenny’s (1986) method of mediation analysis
and the Sobel’s test of indirect effects (Hayes, 2013). Specifically, we considered indirect effects with
bootstrapped 95 percent confidence intervals containing zero non-significant and indirect effects with
bootstrapped 95 percent confidence intervals not containing zero significant.
To deal with potential risks of common method variance (CMV), we followed suggestions made by
(Podsakoff et al., 2003) and applied Harman’s single-factor test, which entails modeling all of the manifested
items as indicators of a single factor that represents method effects. Williams, Cote, and Buckley (1989)
demonstrated that about one quarter of the variance in the measures examined in past literature on self-reported
perceptions at work was attributable to method effects; which indeed in the fields of psychology or sociology
tends to be even higher at 28.9 percent (Cote and Buckley, 1987). Harman’s single-factor test revealed a poor fit
to the data for the sample of undergraduate students ( χ 2 ¼ 3821.64, df ¼ 495, TLI ¼ 0.29, CFI ¼ 0.37, RMSEA
¼ 0.12), as well as for the sample of early career professionals (described later in study 2) ( χ 2 ¼ 1350.03, df ¼
377, TLI ¼ 0.28, CFI ¼ 0.37, RMSEA ¼ 0.16). In addition, the Harman’s single-factor test indicated that CMV
is not substantial in our data. Hence we did not consider the common method factor (CMF) in our analysis since
it tends to affect identification of the models (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Results
Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations for all measures are presented in Table I.
The model without mediation (M0) yielded acceptable model fit (except in the χ²/df values; see Table II) and
revealed that in line with H1a personal initiative had a positive effect on entrepreneurial intentions ( β¼ 0.27;
po0.001). However, in relation to H1b, personal initiative had no effect on expatriate intentions ( β¼ 0.07; p
¼¼0.35). Concerningo flexibility, we found a positive effect on expatriate intentions ( β 0.31; p 0.001)
confirming H2b but not on entrepreneurial intentions ( β¼ 0.04; p ¼ 0.60) whereby disconfirming H2a.
Two-step model testing
The pseudo χ2 test ( χ²/df ¼ 1.68) revealed that a sub-model nested in the confirmatory
measurement model (M1a) with an acceptable goodness of fit existed. Thus, our
measurement model did not suffer from fundamental misspecifications. Moreover, M 1a
yielded acceptable values for RMSEA, CFI, and TLI. (see Table II).
In the sequential χ2 difference test we first compared the saturated structural model (M 1a)
with our proposed model (M2a). This χ2 difference test revealed that our proposed model (M 2a) fitted not
significantly worse than the saturated structural model (M 1a), w2Diff ¼ 0.68, dfDiff ¼ 1, n.s. However, the more
constrained model without mediation of the effects of flexibility (M 2b) fitted not significantly worse than our
proposed model (M2a), w2Diff ¼ 0.01, dfDiff ¼ 1, n.s., and the saturated structural model (M1a), w2Diff ¼ 0.69, dfDiff ¼
2, n.s. Hence, all models were equally fitting the data. Thus, according to the suggestion of Anderson and
 Career m
in
profess
Gerbing (1988) we accepted M2b since it was the most constrained model. Moreover, M 2b yielded acceptable
values for RMSEA, CFI, and TLI (see Table II).
The accepted model (M2b) revealed that in line with H3a and H3b, career orientation

was significantly related to entrepreneurial intentions ( β¼ 0.27, po0.001) and expatriate

intentions ( β¼ 0.10, po0.05). With respect to H4a-d, we argued that career orientation

mediates the relationships between personal initiative and expatriation intention (H4a) as

Personal initiative 4.41 0.64 0.77 (A) 1 1 0.15*** Table I.

Flexibility 3.64 0.66 0.84 (B) 0.43*** 0.18*** Descriptive
Career orientation 4.20 0.83 0.73 (C) 0.37*** 0.31*** 1 findings and
Entrepreneurial intentions 3.82 1.31 0.91 (D) 0.23*** 0.34*** correlation of the
Expatriate intentions 4.50 1.16 0.85 (E) 0.19*** 0.14*** sample of
undergraduate
Notes: N¼ 442. ***po0.01 (two-tailed) 1 0.14*** 1 students (study 1)

Model without mediation (M 0) 74.93 23 3.26 0.07 0.04 0.97 0.94

Step 1
Confirmatory measurement model (M1a) 78.92 26 3.04 0.07 0.03 0.97 0.94

Null structural model (M1b) – 47 – – – – –

Step 2

Proposed model (M2a) 79.60 27 2.95 0.07 0.04 0.97 0.94

indices for

Accepted model (M2b) 79.61 28 2.85 0.07 0.04 0.97 0.94

sample of
undergraduate
JGM

A sample of early career psychology professionals (graduates) in Germany was recruited

using again an online survey. Overall, 154 psychologists participated and answered the
online questionnaire (rate of return: one third of all contacted graduates). We excluded
selfemployed and unemployed participants (54) from our analyses. The self-employed
were excluded because they already had already selected the entrepreneurial path; while
the unemployed were excluded because the study focused on analysis of mobility
intentions of early career professionals who had already succeeded at labor market entry.
Of the remaining 100 participants, 78 percent were female, 52 percent worked in the field
of Clinical Psychology, and 55 percent held a supervisory position.

Instruments and analytical strategy

We used the same measures for all assessed constructs as reported in study 1. All measures,
showed acceptable reliability coefficients (see Table III) as defined by Nunnally (1978)
who recommends Cronbach’s α of 0.70 as the cutoff. The same analytic procedure used in
study 1 was also applied to study 2.
Results
Means, standard deviations, inter-correlations, and reliability for all measures are presented in Table III.
 Career m
in
profess
The model without mediation (M0) yielded acceptable model fit (see Table IV) and revealed that personal
initiative had no effect on expatriate intentions ( β¼ 0.10; p ¼ 0.45) nor on entrepreneurial intentions ( β¼ 0.18;
p ¼ 0.16). Hence, H1a and H1b that

Structural model testing

In the sequential χ2 difference test, we first compared the saturated structural model (M 1a) with our proposed
model (M2a). This χ2 difference test revealed that our proposed model (M 2a) fitted not significantly worse than
the saturated structural model (M1a), w2Diff ¼ 0.73, dfDiff ¼ 1, ns. However, also the more constrained model
without mediation of the effects of flexibility (M 2b) fitted not significantly worse than our proposed model
(M2a), w2Diff ¼ 0.20, dfDiff ¼ 1, ns., and the saturated structural model (M 1a), w2Diff ¼ 0.93, dfDiff ¼ 2, ns. Hence, all
models were equally fitting the data. Thus, according to the suggestion of Anderson and Gerbing (1988) we
JGM
accepted M2b since it was the most constrained model. Moreover, M 3 yielded acceptable values for RMSEA,
CFI, and TLI (see Table IV).
Personal initiative 4.28 0.72 0.86 (A) 1

Flexibility 3.64 0.70 0.88 (B) 0.45*** 1 1 Table III.

(C) 0.65*** 0.25** 0.23** Descriptive findings
Career orientation 4.09 0.88 0.83
(D) 0.29*** 0.31*** 0.22** and correlation for the
Entrepreneurial intentions 3.74 1.47
(E) 0.24** 0.37*** sample of early career
0.92 Expatriate intentions 4.19
professionals (Study
1.38 0.85 2)
1
Notes: N¼ 100. **po0.05; ***po0.01 (two-tailed) 0.08 1
Model without mediation (M0) 32.20 23 1.40 0.06 0.03 0.98 0.96
Step 1
Confirmatory measurement model (M1a) 34.63 26 1.33 0.06 0.02 0.99 0.97

Null structural model (M1b) – 47 – – – – –

Step 2 Table IV.

Proposed model (M2a) 35.36 27 Fit indices for the
1.31
Accepted model (M2b) sample early career
35.56 28 1,27
0.06 0.04 0.99 0.97 professionals (Study
Note: Only the dfs of M1b are needed ( for the pseudo χ2 test)
0.05 0.04 0.99 0.97 2)
The accepted model (M2b) revealed that, contrary to our hypotheses, career orientation was not significantly
related to expatriate intentions ( β¼ 0.15, p ¼ 0.15) and entrepreneurial intentions ( β¼ 0.05, p ¼ 0.76).
These results disconfirm H3a and H3b, respectively that suggested positive relationships between
career orientation attitude and intentions for
 Career m
in
profess

expatriation and entrepreneurship. With respect mediation effects (H4a-d), we posited that career orientation
mediates the relationships between the two protean career factors (personal initiative and flexibility) and
mobility intentions (expatriation and intentions). As illustrated in Figure 3, personal initiative was significantly
related to career orientation ( β¼ 0.83, po0.001). However, flexibility was not significantly related to career
orientation ( β¼−0.14, p ¼ 0.13). According to the bootstrap results, there were no significant indirect effect of
personal initiative on expatriate intentions ( β¼ 0.13, Boot LLCI ¼−0.39, Boot ULCI ¼ 1.24). Hence H4a that
suggested a mediation effect of career orientation in the relationship between personal initiative and expatriate
intentions is not supported. The biascorrected bootstrapped confidence intervals further revealed no significant
indirect effects of personal initiative on entrepreneurial intentions ( β¼ 0.06, Boot LLCI ¼−0.86, Boot ULCI ¼
0.96), disconfirming H4b. In addition, we hypothesized mediation effects of career orientation attitude in the
relationship between flexibility and expatriation intention (H4c) as well as relationship between flexibility and
entrepreneurial intention (H4d). As shown in Figure 3, these hypotheses are also not supported, since we found
non-significant indirect effects of flexibility on expatriation intentions ( β¼−0.02, Boot LLCI ¼−0.61, Boot
ULCI ¼
0.04) and on entrepreneurial intentions ( β¼−0.01, Boot LLCI ¼−0.33, Boot ULCI ¼ 0.11).

Discussion
The current labor market highlights the importance of protean career mindset and behaviors for especially
young people today who are faced with unemployment challenge or preparing for the task of school-to-work
transition. Particularly, the need to be mobile has been strongly advocated for. In the present studies, we
examined the impact of protean personality traits (as reflected in two personality attributes of personal initiative
and flexibility) and career orientation attitude on mobility intentions (specifically expatriation and
entrepreneurial intentions); and whether the impact of personal initiative and flexibility on mobility intentions
are mediated by career orientation attitude.

Flexibility and mobility intentions

The results of both studies indicated that flexibility had substantial positive effect on expatriation intentions, yet
almost similar effects sizes in both studies (study 1 with a sample of undergraduate students and study 2 with a
sample of early career professionals, i.e. recent graduates of psychology). However, flexibility was related to
entrepreneurial intentions only among the sample of early career professionals, and not in the student sample.
This implies that for individuals who are already working, flexibility plays a role in willingness to be mobile
(both willingness to work abroad or to start one’s own business).
JGM

Amongst the undergraduate students’ sample, flexibility only matters when considering expatriate work.
However, flexibility is less important when it comes to entrepreneurial intentions. It should be noted that
during the course of training, students only have selected the course of study, but may not have firm thoughts
or decisions about career path options. Students with strong flexibility trait, yet focused on professional career
success, may therefore think of expatriation as a more viable career path than entrepreneurship. This could also
be because many undergraduate students could have had international internship experiences which sensitizes
them to expatriate work (Mather, 2008; Ryan et al., 2013; Stumpf, 2014). Contrary to the socialization towards
expatriation work, entrepreneurial socialization through training of direct experience during university study
seems to be limited for only those students pursuing business related courses (Robinson and Haynes, 1991).
Hence, there is a possibility that the influence of flexibility on undergraduate students’ choice for expatriation
or entrepreneurship is affected by professional socialization.
For early career professionals, on the other hand, flexibility might enable them to have open minds towards
expatriate work and entrepreneurship. There are two possible explanations for this relationship. First,
flexibility in career decisions is related to openness for new career experiences as well as managing career
transitions (Froese et al., 2013; Koen et al., 2012). Hence, for flexible graduates, who are either in the process
of transiting from school to work, or seeking new career experiences, both expatriation and entrepreneurship
are attractive career paths. Second, psychology is one of the professions with massive potential for self-
employment through private practice (e.g. we excluded 35.07 percent of psychology graduates in study 2 from
the analysis because they were already selfemployed). Yet psychologists (particularly at high level of training)
in private practice tend to earn more than their counterparts (Finno et al., 2010). Hence, private practice, just
like expatriation, is an attractive career path for psychology graduates with high level of flexibility. However,
with an increase in the number of people engaged in expatriate entrepreneurship, it would be interesting for
recent graduates of psychology but also other subjects to engage in private practice abroad, where the demand
for psychological services such as organizational consulting might be high in currently industrializing countries.

Personal initiative and mobility intentions

Concerning the role of personal initiative, our results revealed that it is not related to expatriation intentions
across both samples (undergraduate students and early career professionals). It therefore seems that personal
initiative matters less regarding willingness to work abroad. Although previous studies have indicated that
personal initiative plays a role in exhibiting proactive career behaviors (Frese and Fay, 2001; Ito, 2003). We
posit that expatriation belongs to the category of proactive career behaviors, where people seek career
development and success in unfamiliar geographical location. This is especially true in the case self-initiated
expatriation (Selmer et al., 2017). It could therefore be of interest to scholars to further examine the relationship
between personal initiative and readiness for expatriate work in different populations or across countries. It is
possible that the negligible effects of personal initiative on expatriation intentions in our studies are related to
 Career m
in
profess
the limited sample scope. However, in relation to entrepreneurial intentions, our hypothesis that proactivity
plays a significant role was supported among the sample of current students (study 1). Nonetheless, it was not
supported among recent psychology graduates (again, which could be an effect of the sampling scope). The
relationship could be somewhat different among early career professionals for different fields of study, in line
with prior expatriation (e.g. Mather, 2008; Ryan et al., 2013; Stumpf, 2014) and entrepreneurial (e.g.
Nabi et al., 2017; Starr and Fondas, 1992) socialization literature.
The mediating role of career orientation
In this paper, we have conceptualized that protean personality traits are characterized by two traits of personal
initiative and flexibility. We hypothesized that a protean attitude, namely career orientation, is likely to be the
mechanism though which protean traits affect mobility intentions (expatriation and entrepreneurial intentions).
Results of study 1 revealed that career orientation is related to both expatriation and entrepreneurial intentions
of undergraduate students. However, the same effects were not found in the sample of early career
professionals. In addition, career orientation was not affected by flexibility in both samples. On the contrary, we
found that personal initiative has positive significant relationships with career orientation of both samples. The
striving for professional excellence describes the core essence of career orientation (Maier et al., 2009; Otto et
al.,
2017). In the era of protean and boundaryless careers, being proactive and taking career initiatives are some of
the ways that people achieve career success (Seibert et
al., 2001). Therefore, individuals with high level of career orientation are likely to exhibit proactive behaviors
that enhance career development; which may be reflected in readiness to be mobile; that is either expatriating or
going into entrepreneurship or both.
Moreover, our mediation model hypothesized that the personal initiative and flexibility affect expatriation
and entrepreneurial intentions through career orientation. However, indirect effects were only significant for the
relationship between personal initiative and entrepreneurial intention among the sample of undergraduate
students (study 1). Careeroriented individuals tend to value career success highly (Ellemers et al., 1998), with
high desire for achievement (Otto et al., 2017). Yet entrepreneurship offers both opportunities for individuals to
pursue their high career ambitions and exercise their creativity and innovativeness. On the other hand,
expatriation offers opportunities for success for some individuals (Ramaswami et al., 2016), it does not
necessary offer opportunities to exercise one’s creativity. Hence, entrepreneurship is a desirable career path for
individuals, particularly students, with both high personal initiative and career orientation. However, with
increasing interest in entrepreneurial expatriation (Basaiawmoit, 2013; Vance et al., 2016), it is now possible
that expatriation work offers opportunities for creative and achievement oriented individuals. We therefore
encourage that future mobility research to the role of proactivity and career orientation (or career achievement
motivation) in readiness for expatriate entrepreneurship.

Limitations and future research

Our studies have a number of limitations and potentials that should be considered. Concerning the limitations,
only self-report measures were used. Therefore, we cannot rule out the effect of shared method bias that might
magnify the observed relationships among the variables. However, according to our analyses regarding
common method effects this problem does not seem to be severe in both studies. In addition, it has been
suggested that common methods challenge tend to be limited in studies using multiple item measures with high
reliability (Fuller et al., 2016).
Another challenge relates to the cross sectional nature of the studies. This restricts the confirmation of the
causality between the measures. Additionally, we studied a sample of undergraduate students and early career
professionals in the field of psychology (only) in Germany. This limited sample scope poses a challenge to
JGM
generalization of our findings to students in, for example, less developed countries or early career professionals
in other fields. Intentions for expatriate work as well for entrepreneurship develop over time. This is related to
the socialization process that occurs during training at school or practical experiences (Nabi et al., 2017; Porter
and Umbach, 2006; Ryan et al., 2013, 2015; Starr and Fondas, 1992). Therefore, longitudinal studies might be
appropriate to studying the formation of expatriation and entrepreneurial (and expatriate entrepreneurship)
intentions. Future studies might benefit from investigating robust cross-cultural samples at multiple time points.
Despite these limitations, the present studies contribute to expatriation and entrepreneurial intention. The studies
also contribute to the growing literature on expatriation and entrepreneurship; individuals who are interested in
entrepreneurship are likely to hold intentions to work abroad. Another contribution regards substantiating the factors
that impact the formation of mobility intentions and preferences at different levels of career development. Particularly,
we test our hypotheses with a sample of undergraduate university students (training period) as well
as a sample of early career professionals (after professional entry or in school-to-work transition). We could observe
several similarities in the results with both samples, for example, the relationship between flexibility and expatriation
intention. This to some extent offsets the weakness of correlational data and self-report measures.

Implications for practice

Results of our studies indicate that protean traits, flexibility and personal initiative, as well as career
orientation attitude play important roles in choosing mobility career paths. Particularly, results of both studies
show that flexibility is related to willingness to expatriate among undergraduate students and early career
professionals in the psychology field; but also entrepreneurship intentions among early career professionals.
Career orientation was also found to be essential for both expatriation and entrepreneurial intentions among
sample of current students. However, career orientation could not mediate these effects in both studies. In
contrast to that, to possess personal initiative seems to be a key factor in considering entrepreneurship for
individuals still in professional training (undergraduate students), but not early career professionals. Our
results indicate that personal initiative has the highest correlations with career orientation, as shown in the
models of both studies. Nonetheless, career orientation only mediated the personal initiative-entrepreneurial
intentions link in the student sample but not in the sample of early career professionals. Early career
professionals who already have jobs have already made a decision regarding their career path. This limits the
role of career orientation and other factors. It is only those who are high in flexibility trait or those not satisfied
in their current work that may consider transiting into expatriate work or entrepreneurship. For students,
however, a strong career orientation could work as a guidance principle in exploring their opportunities and
making professional choices.
These findings have implications particularly for vocational counseling and career guidance as well
interventions seeking to promote career mobility among young people. In general, for the students (those still in
their education/training period), the specific protean personality concept plays a role as it shows a differential
pattern of relationships. Whereas for entrepreneurial intentions, personal initiative is a central key; for
expatriate intentions flexibility is essential. For those already working in their chosen profession, the role of
personal initiative vanished and only flexibility could be regarded as a resource when it comes to higher
expatriate or entrepreneurial intentions. Hence, practitioners could gear their efforts towards enhancing
students’ potential for proactive career behaviors and career orientation attitude to increase students’ likelihood
of choosing the entrepreneurial path. To increase students’ willingness to work abroad, practitioners should
particularly focus on flexibility. However, early career professionals, increasing their potential for career
flexibility likely shape both intentions that to work abroad and to go into business. In a highly globalized
working world, with exacerbated unemployment and job insecurity, both mobility options (expatriation and
entrepreneurship) may provide practical opportunities for a fast school-to-work transition and career
development. Moreover, socializing and motivating early career professionals towards both expatriation and
entrepreneurship could be essential for increasing expatriation opportunities.
 Career m
in
profess
Conclusion
Taken together, the studies presented in this paper demonstrate that protean-like traits and attitudes are potential
contributors to the understanding of career mobility preferences and consequently mobility behaviors. We have
demonstrated that personal initiative and flexibility are essential traits in predicting intention to expatriate or to
engage in entrepreneurship; and that career orientation attitude is a mediating
mechanism between protean traits and readiness to be mobile. However, our findings have showed that the
relevance of these traits and career orientation to predicting mobility intentions varies among populations. We
found high entrepreneurial intentions among undergraduate students with high personal initiative. On the other
hand, we found high expatriation intention among those high on flexibility trait. For the early career
professionals, flexibility predicted both expatriation and entrepreneurial intentions. Moreover, we found career
orientation relevant for both expatriation and entrepreneurial intentions among undergraduate students but not
among early career professionals. We hope that our findings can stimulate increased inquiry on the role of
protean traits and attitudes to international mobility, including entrepreneurial expatriation.

Al Ariss, A. and Crowley-Henry, M. (2013), “Self-initiated expatriation and migration in the management literature”, Career
Development International, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 78-96.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step
approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Arbuckle, J.L. (2012), “IBM SPSS amos 21 user’s guide”, Amos Development Corporation, New York, NY.
Arnold, J. (2001), “Careers and career management”, in Anderson, N., Ones, D.S., Sinangil, H.K. and Chockalingam, V.
(Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology – Volume 2: Organizational Psychology, SAGE
Publications Ltd, London, pp. 115-132.
Arthur, M.B. (2014), “The boundaryless career at 20: where do we stand, and where can we go?”, Career Development
International, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 627-640.
Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986), “The moderator – mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp.
1173-1182.
Baruch, Y. (2004), “Transforming careers: from linear to multidirectional career paths. Organizational and individual
perspectives”, Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 58-73.
Baruch, Y., Altman, Y. and Tung, R.L. (2016), “Career mobility in a global era: advances in managing expatriation and
repatriation”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 841889.
Basaiawmoit, R.V.N.J. (2013), “Expatriate entrepreneurship in Denmark – can transnational & crosscultural practices be
unilaterally adopted ?”, ISBE Conference 2013, Cardiff, pp. 1-17.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.
Benz, M. and Frey, B.S. (2008), “Being independent is a great thing: subjective evaluations of selfemployment and
hierarchy”, Economica, Vol. 75 No. 298, pp. 362-383.
Binder, M. and Coad, A. (2013), “Life satisfaction and self-employment: a matching approach”, Small Business Economics,
Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 1009-1033.
JGM
Bozionelos, N. (2009), “Expatriation outside the boundaries of the multinational corporation: a study with expatriate nurses
in Saudi Arabia”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 111134.

Briscoe, J.P. and Hall, D.T. (2006), “The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers:
combinations and implications”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 4-18.
Cote, J.a. and Buckley, M.R. (1987), “Estimating Trait, method, and error variance: generalizing across 70 construct
validation studies”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 315-318.
Crant, J.M. (1996), “The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 1-11.
Dalbert, C. and Otto, K. (2004), “Allgemeine geografische Mobilitätsbereitschaft. Modifizierte Fassung”, in Otto, K.,
Glaser, D. and Dalbert, C. (2004), Skalendokumentation “Geografische und berufliche Mobilitätsbereitschaft”
(Hallesche Berichte zur Pädagogischen Psychologie Nr. 8, S. 9-10), Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg,
Institut für Pädagogik, Halle (Saale).
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000), “The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: human needs and the selfdetermination of
behavior”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 227-268.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2008), “Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains”,
Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 1423.
Dell, E. and Amadu, I.M. (2015), “Proactive personality and entrepreneurial intention: employment status and student level
as moderators”, International Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 1-13.
Dickmann, M. (2017), “The new normal of global mobility – flexibility, diversity & data mastery”, HR Reviews, available
at: https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1826/12581/The_ new_normal_of_global_mobility-2017.pdf?
sequence=1 (accessed November 26, 2017).
Dickmann, M. and Baruch, Y. (2011), Global Careers, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY, available at:
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412976107.n18 (accessed December 8, 2016).
Doherty, N., Richardson, J. and Thorn, K. (2013), “Self-initiated expatriation: career experiences, processes and outcomes”,
Career Development International, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 6-11.
Douglas, E.J. and Shepherd, D.A. (2002), “Self-employment as a career choice: attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and
utility maximization”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 81-90.
Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D. and van den Heuvel, H. (1998), “Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and
behavior at work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 5, pp. 717-730.
Fay, D. and Frese, M. (2001), “The concept of personal initiative: an overview of validity studies”, Human Performance, Vol.
14 No. 1, pp. 97-124.
Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. (2015), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention:
hysteresis and persistence”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 75-93.
Finno, A.A., Michalski, D., Hart, B., Wicherski, M. and Kohout, J.L. (2010), “2009: Report of the APA Salary Survey”, APA
Center for Workforce Studies, available at: www.apa.org/workforce/ publications/09-salaries/ (accessed August 19,
2017).
Frändberg, L. (2015), “Acceleration or avoidance? The role of temporary moves abroad in the transition to adulthood”,
Population, Space and Place, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 553-567.
Frese, M. and Fay, D. (2001), “Personal initiative: an active performance concept for work in the 21st century”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 133-187, doi:
10.1016/S0191-3085 (01)23005-6.
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K. and Tag, A. (1997), “The concept of personal initiative:
 Career m
in
profess
operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 139-161.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A. and Zempel, J. (1996), “Personal initiative at work: differences between east and west
Germany”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 37-63.
Fritsch, M. and Wyrwich, M. (2014), “The effect of regional entrepreneurship culture on economic development – evidence
for Germany”, Jena Economic Research Papers, Jena, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10273-011-1262-2
(accessed July 1, 2016).
Froese, F.J., Jommersbach, S. and Klautzsch, E. (2013), “Cosmopolitan career choices: a cross-cultural study of job
candidates’ expatriation willingness”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 17, pp.
3247-3261.
Fuller, C.M., Simmering, M.J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y. and Babin, B.J. (2016), “Common methods variance detection in business
research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3192-3198.
Glaser, D. and Dalbert, C. (2004), “Bereitschaft zu beruflicher Selbständigkeit”, in Otto, K., Glaser, D. and Dalbert, C.
(2004), Skalendokumentation “Geografische und berufliche
Mobilitätsbereitschaft” (Hallesche Berichte zur Pädagogischen Psychologie Nr. 8, S. 18-19), Martin-Luther-
Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Institut für Pädagogik, Halle (Saale).
Glaub, M.E., Frese, M., Fischer, S. and Hoppe, M. (2014), “Increasing personal initiative in small business managers or
owners leads to entrepreneurial success: a theory-based controlled randomized field intervention for evidence-based
management”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 354-379.
Hall, D.T. (1996), “Careers of the 21st century”, The Academy of Management Executive, Academy of Management, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 8-16.
Hall, D.T. (2002), Careers In and Out of Organisations, Foundation, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hamtiaux, A., Houssemand, C. and Vrignaud, P. (2013), “Individual and career adaptability: comparing models and
measures”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 130-141.
Hansemark, O.C. (2003), “Need for achievement, locus of control and the prediction of business startups: a longitudinal
study”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 301-319.
Hartung, P.J., Porfeli, E.J. and Vondracek, F.W. (2008), “Career adaptability in childhood”, The Career Development
Quarterly, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 63-74.
Hatch, N.W. and Dyer, J.H. (2004), “Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1155-1178.
Hayes, A. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, Guilford, Guilford Press, New
York, NY, available at: https://doi.org/978-1-60918-230-4
Haynie, J.M., Shepherd, D., Mosakowski, E. and Earley, P.C. (2010), “A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial
mindset”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 217-229.
Holland, J.J.L. (1996), “Exploring careers with a typology: what we have learned and some new directions”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 397-406.
Holland, J.L. (1997), Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments, Vol. 3,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hossiep, R. and Paschen, M. (1998), Bochumer Inventar Zur Berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung (BIP), Hogrefe,
Göttingen.
JGM
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus
new alternatives cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new
alternatives”, Mutidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Inkson, K. (2006), “Protean and boundaryless careers as metaphors”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 48-
63.
Ito, J.K. (2003), “Career mobility and branding in the civil service: an empirical study”, Public Personnel Management, Vol.
32 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Johnson, B.R. (1990), “Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: the case of achievement motivation and the
entrepreneur”, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 3954.
Johnson, S.M. and Birkeland, S.E. (2003), “Pursuing a ‘sense of success’: new teachers explain their career decisions”,
American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 581-617.
Kautonen, T., Tornikoski, E.T. and Kibler, E. (2011), “Entrepreneurial intentions in the third age: the impact of perceived age
norms”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 219-234.
Kline, R. (2004), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., Guildford, New York, NY.
Koch, A., Gabler, S. and Braun, M. (1994), “Konzeption und Durchführung der’ Allgemeinen Bevölkerungsumfrage der
Sozialwissenschaften (ALLBUS)”, available at: http://nbn-resolving. de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-70202
Koen, J., Klehe, U.-C. and Van Vianen, A.E.M. (2012), “Training career adaptability to facilitate a successful school-to-work
transition”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 395408.
Koen, J., Klehe, U.C., Van Vianen, A.E.M., Zikic, J. and Nauta, A. (2010), “Job-search strategies and reemployment quality.
The impact of career adaptability”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 126-139.
Kubra, S., Canhilal, R., Shemueli, G. and Dolan, S. (2015), “Antecedent factors for success in international assignments: the
case of expatriates in Peru”, Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 1-31.
Lent, R., Brown, S. and Hackett, G. (2000), “Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: a social cognitive analysis.”,
Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 36-49.
Lent, R.W. and Brown, S.D. (2013), “Social cognitive model of career self-management: toward a unifying view of adaptive
career behavior across the life span”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 557-568.
Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D. and Hackett, G. (1994), “Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest,
choice, and performance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 79-122.
Lent, R.W., Ezeofor, I., Morrison, M.A., Penn, L.T. and Ireland, G.W. (2016), “Applying the social cognitive model of career
self-management to career exploration and decision-making”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 93, pp. 47-57,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.12.007
Little, T.D., Cunningham, W.A., Shahar, G. and Widaman, K.F. (2002), “To parcel or not to parcel:
exploring the question, weighing the merits”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 233-255.

Maier, G.W., Wastian, M. and Rosenstiel, L. von (2009), “Der differenzielle einfluss der berufsorientierungen auf
berufserfolg und arbeitsmotivation”, Zeitschrift Für Arbeits- Und Organisationspsychologie A&O, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp.
104-120.
Mather, P.C. (2008), “Interns at an international, humanitarian organization: career pathways and meaning making”, Journal
of College Student Development, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 182-198.
 Career m
in
profess
Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N. and Walmsley, A. (2017), “The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher
education: a systematic review and research agenda”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 277-299.
Nunnally, J.C.J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, Mc Graw-Hill, New York, NY.
Otto, K., Roe, R., Sobiraj, S., Baluku, M.M. and Garrido Vásquez, M.E. (2017), “The impact of career ambition on
psychologists’ extrinsic and intrinsic career success”, Career Development International, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 23-36.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp.
879-903.
Porter, S.R. and Umbach, P.D. (2006), “College major choice: an analysis of person-environment fit”, Research in Higher
Education, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 429-449.
Prabhu, V.P., McGuire, S.J., Drost, E.a. and Kwong, K.K. (2012), “Proactive personality and entrepreneurial intent: is
entrepreneurial self-efficacy a mediator or moderator?”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 559-586.
Ramaswami, A., Carter, N.M. and Dreher, G.F. (2016), “Expatriation and career success: a human capital perspective”,
Human Relations, Vol. 69 No. 10, pp. 1959-1987.
Robinson, P. and Haynes, M. (1991), “Entrepreneurship education in America’s major universities”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 41-52.
Rodrigues, R., Guest, D. and Budjanovcanin, A. (2013), “From anchors to orientations: Towards a contemporary theory of
career preferences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 142-152.
Rooks, G., Sserwanga, A. and Frese, M. (2016), “Unpacking the personal initiative-performance relationship: a multi-group
analysis of innovation by ugandan rural and urban entrepreneurs”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 99-131.
Ryan, J., Silvanto, S. and Brown, H.T. (2013), “The impact of experience-based MBA educational programs on international
career mobility”, Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research, Vol. 1 No. 1959, pp.
28-45.
Ryan, J., Silvanto, S. and Ozkaya, H.E. (2015), “A contextual, theoretical and empirical analysis of the uses of university
degrees as symbolic capital in self-initiated expatriation”, European Journal of International Management, Vol. 9 No.
5, p. 614.
Schein, E.H. (1996), “Career anchors revisited: implications for career development in the 21st century.”, Academy of
Management Perspectives, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 80-88.
Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L. and Crant, J.M. (2001), “What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive
personality and career success”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 243, pp. 845-874.
Selmer, J. (2017), “Where have all the expatriates gone?”, Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management
Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 2-4.
Selmer, J., Andresen, M. and Cerdin, J.-L. (2017), “Self-initiated expatriates”, in Mcnulty, Y. and Selmer, J. (Eds),
Research Handbook of Expatriates, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp. 187-201.
Simpson, R. (2005), “Men in non-traditional occupations: career entry, carrer orientation and experience of role strain”,
Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 363-380.
Solomon, G., Frese, M., Friedrich, C. and Glaub, M. (2013), “Can personal initiative training improve small business
success? A longitudinal South African evaluation study”, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 255-268.
JGM
Spokane, A.R., Meir, E.I. and Catalano, M. (2000), “Person – environment congruence and Holland’s theory: a review and
reconsideration”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 137187.
Starr, J. a. and Fondas, N. (1992), “A model of entrepreneurial socialization and organization formation”, Entrepreneurship:
Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 67-77.
Steiger, J. (2007), “Understanding the limitations of global fit assesment in structural equation modelling.”, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 893-898.
Stumpf, S.A. (2014), “A longitudinal study of career success, embeddedness, and mobility of early career professionals”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 180-190.
Sullivan, S.E. (1999), “The changing nature of careers: a review and research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No.
3, pp. 457-484.
Sullivan, S.E. and Baruch, Y. (2009), “Advances in career theory and research: a critical review and agenda for future
exploration”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1542-1571.
Tekleselassie, A.A. and Villarreal, P. (2011), “Career mobility and departure intentions among school principals in the
United States: incentives and disincentives”, Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 251-293.
Tung, R.L. (1982), “Selection and training procedures of U.S., European, and Japanese multinationals”, California
Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 57-71.
Urban, B. (2012), “A metacognitive approach to explaining entrepreneurial intentions”, Management Dynamics, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 16-33.
Van Vianen, A.E.M. (2000), “Person-organization fit: the match between newcomers’ and recruiters’ preferences for
organizational cultures”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 113-149.
Vance, C.M., McNulty, Y., Paik, Y. and D’Mello, J. (2016), “The expat-preneur: conceptualizing a growing international
career phenomenon”, Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp.
202-224.
Williams, L.J., Cote, J. a. and Buckley, M.R. (1989), “Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at
work: reality or artifact?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 462-468.
Williams, N., Vorley, T. and Ketikidis, P.H. (2013), “Economic resilience and entrepreneurship: a case study of the
Thessaloniki city region”, Local Economy, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 399-415.
Wu, S., Matthews and Dagher, G.K. (2007), “Need for achievement, business goals, and entrepreneurial persistence”,
Management Research News, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 928-941.
Zacher, H. (2014), “Career adaptability predicts subjective career success above and beyond personality traits and core self-
evaluations”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 21-30.

Corresponding author

Martin Mabunda Baluku can be contacted at: martin.baluku@staff.uni-marburg.de

 Career m
in
profess
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us
for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com