Thesis Review of Related Literature.

Career Mobility

Career mobility refers to the movement of individuals within or across job roles,

organizational levels, or industries. This concept is crucial in understanding how employees

develop and progress in their careers, particularly within routine-based industries like Business

Process Outsourcing (BPO), where structural constraints often limit career advancement. Studies

define career mobility through both internal and external pathways (LinkedIn, n.d.). Internal

mobility includes vertical and horizontal movements within an organization, while external

mobility refers to movement between companies or industries (Guild, 2024).

Employees that move within the same company either vertically (to a higher or lower

hierarchy) or horizontally (to the same level jobs) are perceived to be exhibiting internal career

mobility. Employee benefits include increased motivation, network growth, and skill

development; nevertheless, it can also lead to competition and knowledge gaps. On the other

hand, external career mobility is relocating to a different company or industry, which might

increase market value and expose one to new challenges, but it can also result in greater

recruitment expenses and the loss of human capital. An optimal balance of both types fosters a

dynamic workforce, but clear policies on career planning, mentoring, and recognition are

essential to avoid negative consequences.

However, poor managerial support, a lack of resources, and disconnected data and

departments all limit internal mobility (Frajnd, 2024). A study conducted in 2020 that examined

how coworkers' upward mobility affects employees' turnover intentions using social comparison
theory (Huang, Wang, Pi, & Hewlin, 2020). It argues that when coworkers move to better jobs, it

influences others' perceptions of their own employability, increasing their desire to leave,

especially when they have similar job roles. Data from 369 employees in China supports these

findings, highlighting the need for more research on turnover mechanisms and practical HR

strategies.

Additionally, to promote internal mobility, prioritize improving onboarding, encouraging

exploration, offering opportunities for growth, executing efficient management, personalizing

employee recognition, and developing clear career paths. This creates a culture that encourages

progress and allows employees to perceive clear avenues for advancement. Using technologies to

promote communication and training, as well as displaying success stories, contributes to

creating a climate that encourages internal career advancement.

Job security is becoming increasingly uncertain as a result of rapid social and economic

developments such as new technologies, outsourcing, and global crises like COVID-19.

Employees often have to locate new job opportunities as a result of these trends. Successful

transitions usually occur when employees use their previous talents to new responsibilities

(Dawson, Williams, & Rizoiu, 2021).

Globalization, technology, and altering professional attitudes have all had a substantial

impact on job changes during the last four decades. A study by Sullivan and Al Ariss (2021)

highlights the importance of employability skills—such as adaptability, problem-solving, and

continuous learning—in facilitating successful career transitions. However, many call center

agents find it challenging to develop these competencies within the confines of their roles, which

focus primarily on customer service and technical support.

industry and those required by other sectors. For example, while call center agents may excel in

communication and time management, they may lack the technical expertise or critical thinking

skills valued in the higher positions within the BPO industry or in other industries such as

finance, healthcare, or technology. This discrepancy limits their ability to compete with

candidates who acquired relevant skills or formal educational credentials (Vos, Jacobs, &

Verbruggen, 2021).

Additionally, many employees encounter organizational barriers when attempting to

advance their career. Research suggests that employees in routine-based industries benefit greatly

from reskilling initiatives and structured learning opportunities that focus on developing

transferable skills (Schneidera & Harknett, 2019). However, in the BPO sector, such programs

are often limited, and many employees are left to navigate their career advancement

independently.

This lack of institutional support creates a disadvantage for call center agents, especially

when they are competing for roles that require specialized knowledge or advanced qualifications.

As noted in Sullivan and Al Ariss’s (2021) stud, individual agency plays a key role in

determining the success of career movement, but structural factors—such as recruitment

practices and employer biases—also significantly impact outcomes. In this context, the interplay

between career stagnation and limited skills development becomes critical in shaping the career

trajectories of BPO employees.

Despite these challenges, there are success stories of BPO employees who have advanced

into other sectors by strategically leveraging their customer service skills, teamwork abilities,
and adaptability (Thibstas, 2023). These examples highlight the importance of personal branding

and proactive career management in overcoming barriers to mobility.

The extensive body of literature reviewed reveals a complex interplay between workplace

dynamics, demographic factors, retention challenges, professional stagnation, skills development

limitations, and career mobility within the Philippine BPO call center industry. While previous

studies have examined these elements individually, there remains a critical gap in understanding

how these factors collectively create barriers to career mobility among call center employees.

The existing research emphasizes that while the BPO industry continues to grow and evolve

technologically, individual career trajectories often remain stagnant due to various structural and

organizational constraints. This paradox between industry growth and individual career

development presents a significant area for investigation. Furthermore, while studies have

extensively explored employee retention and burnout within call centers, as well as the

challenges of career advancement across industries, limited research has specifically examined

how the combination of professional stagnation and restricted skills development directly

impacts career mobility pathways in the Philippine context.

Understanding these dynamics is crucial not only for academic discourse but also for

practical industry applications, as the findings could inform strategic interventions to enhance

career development opportunities in the sector. Moreover, given the Philippine BPO industry's

significant contribution to the national economy and employment, investigating these barriers to

career mobility becomes increasingly important for sustainable industry growth and workforce

development. The insights gained from this research will contribute to both theoretical

understanding and practical solutions for addressing career mobility challenges in routine-based

industries, particularly within the unique context of the Philippine BPO sector.
OTHER SOURCES:
FROM IRESEARCH.NET:
Career mobility represents individuals’ patterns of transitions between organizations
and within organizations in the course of their work lives. It is a very broad term
that essentially incorporates all possible movements in one’s career. As
organizational layoffs and restructuring are becoming common, it is not surprising
that employees, who realize that lifelong job security may no longer be a realistic
employment goal, are ready to become more mobile. In fact, moving across jobs
and even occupations is now the rule rather than the exception. Unlike in the past,
today people increasingly have multiple career transitions and changes, such as
internal transfers, job rotations, overseas assignments, switching from full-time to
part-time, and changing employers and occupations. These frequent career
transitions and changes in recent years are attributed to an increasing emphasis on
learning, skill enhancement, meaningful work, personal control, job satisfaction, and
career satisfaction. The interest in obtaining a variety of work experiences across
jobs and occupations (careers)—and therefore individuals’ constant movement
across these boundaries—is causing careers to become increasingly
“boundaryless.” In the era of boundaryless careers, people’s work experiences are
not limited to only one or two firms. Instead, their careers span across multiple firms
and employment settings. As such, portable skills are important assets. When
equipped with portable skills, employees more easily move from one employer to
another and from one occupation to another. Multiple career transitions also further
facilitate the building of repertoires of skill sets that can benefit individuals’ careers
in the long run. Types of career mobility can be differentiated on the basis of at least
two dimensions. The first mobility dimension is vertical-horizontal. A vertical
movement involves changing to a job with a significantly higher or lower level of
responsibility. The second mobility dimension is internal-external. An internal
movement is narrowly defined as changing to a job that is offered by the same
employer. An external movement involves changing to a job that is offered by a
different employer. Crossing these two dimensions gives rise to four generic types
of career mobility, which will be discussed in turn below: internal-vertical, internal-
horizontal, external-horizontal, and external-vertical. One’s career often contains
multiple instances of these transitions. Internal-vertical career movement involves
changing to a job internally with increased or decreased responsibility. Taking a
promotion offer from the current employer is a common example. Specifically, being
promoted is traditionally the most desired type of career mobility, because it can
enhance status, responsibilities, satisfaction, and esteem. Also, promotions often
improve one’s financial rewards on the job, which are generally valued. It has been
suggested that two theoretical perspectives on upward mobility are particularly
relevant to understanding what predicts employees’ promotions: a contest-mobility
norm and a sponsored-mobility norm. The contest-mobility norm perspective
suggests that all individuals have the same likelihood of winning the competition for
mobility on the basis of their individual merits. The goal of this system is to give
elite status to those who earn it. People compete with each other in an open and fair
contest for the advancement, and victory comes along to those who demonstrate
accomplishments. For instance, those who have better human capital investments,
such as higher levels of education, are more likely to obtain internal promotions.
Work experience also increases one’s likelihood of obtaining promotions, because
work experience is often valued and thus rewarded in the labor market. Skills
acquired in training and development programs also equip employees with more
competencies and skills for competing for promotions. In contrast, the sponsored-
mobility norm perspective suggests that established elites pay special attention to
members who are deemed to have high potential and then provide sponsoring
activities to them to help them win the competition. Thus, those who have early
successes are more likely to receive sponsorship, and those who do not are likely to
be excluded from such support activities. For instance, one’s broader social network
at work should result in greater career sponsorship from senior colleagues, including
supervisors and mentors, which can, in turn, increase the chances for promotions.
Also, those who are able to manage their impressions better or have stronger social
influence skills should also have more promotions because these skills increase
interpersonal liking. Thus, this theoretical perspective implies that social factors
play an important role in determining who gets ahead. The contest- and sponsored-
mobility norm perspectives together suggest that employees’ competencies and
hard work and employers’ support and sponsorship collectively result in upward
mobility. Demotion is another type of internal-vertical career movement. Because
layoffs are common in recent years, some employees may accept demotions in
return for not being laid off. However, as one would expect, it is a common research
finding that demotions lead to unfavorable job attitudes, such as lower fairness
perceptions and greater turnover intentions. The exception is when an employee
volunteers for the demotion. One of the motives to do so is to better understand the
operations in an organization. Another reason is the desire to equip oneself with
different sets of skills. Compared with promotions, the topic of demotions has
received less research attention. Internal-horizontal career movement is changing to
a job that entails different tasks or settings without significant change in
responsibility, while remaining with the same employer. In response to the intense
global competition, organizations in recent decades have frequently downsized or
restructured their operations, creating new work tasks or redesigning old ones. This
gives rise to abundant opportunities for internal-horizontal transfers, including
internal job rotations, relocations to another city or state, and international
assignments. This type of career mobility may be increasingly welcomed because,
as mentioned, employees may want to work on jobs that allow them to build
repertoires of different skills. More specifically, an internal-horizontal career
transition causes disruptions to as well as generates benefits for one’s work and
career. The possible disruptions associated with such a change may involve losing
one’s place in line for promotion; losing social ties; disruptions to family, especially
if the change involves a geographical move; confusion about one’s own goals; and
general stress caused by adapting to the new environment. However, such a
change can also be beneficial if individuals want to expand their skills sets or
networks, obtain new experiences and personal growth, rejuvenate their careers, or
forge paths for future promotions or are bored with their current positions. A
decision to take the internal-horizontal transition is made when the benefits are
believed to outweigh the costs. One of the most important costs to consider is
whether the change involves geographical moves. Horizontal transfers that involve
geographical moves are often less welcomed than those that don’t. For instance,
relocation to another city or state should be less desired than internal job rotation.
However, relocation has occurred more frequently in recent years, especially for
those who work in large corporations. It has been found in research that those who
have less to sacrifice in leaving their current communities (e.g., have fewer social
ties) are more willing to accept relocation. However, when the relocation is an
overseas transition, more unique factors have to be considered. It is widely
acknowledged that expatriates face a variety of obstacles and challenges in their
overseas transitions, such as language barriers, stressful environmental conditions
in the assigned county/region (e.g., potentially unstable political situations),
learning and sensitivity to cultural differences and local customs, as well as work-
related adjustment issues. In terms of research, a number of studies in this area
have investigated the adjustment of expatriates. One of the factors that facilitate
their adjustment is support from different sources. For instance, it has been found
that positive attitudes of and support from spouses facilitate expatriates’
transitions. Furthermore, home country organizational support, local country
organizational support, and supervisor support are all related to expatriates’ work,
interactional, and general adjustment. Expatriates’ premature departures are said
to indicate unsuccessful overseas transitions. Another increasingly common type of
internal-horizontal career movement is changing from full-time to part-time status.
The benefits of such a change include freeing up time to take care of families and
pursue other interests, decreasing work stress, and making working multiple part-
time jobs possible if the individual does not want to work in the same environment
all the time. Possible costs include lower income, reduced chances of promotions,
loss of some fringe benefits, and feelings of alienation at work. External-horizontal
career movement involves changing to a job with a different employer that entails
different work tasks or settings without a significant change in responsibility. That is,
it involves individuals leaving their current organizations and looking for similar
jobs. It can entail changing employers with or without changing professions. For
instance, a nurse may work in different hospitals over the course of his or her
career. Another nurse may quit working in a hospital and become an assistant at an
elder care center. Changing employers is said to be highly common in boundaryless
careers. A great deal of research has been devoted to identifying predictors of
voluntary turnover. One consistent finding is that “morale” factors (e.g., job
dissatisfaction) dominate individuals’ decisions to change employers. That is, the
main reason people change employers is that they are not satisfied with their
current jobs or/and organizations. However, in recent research, a number of non-
morale-related factors have been identified as being relevant to predicting
voluntary turnover. For instance, those who perceive a lack of sufficient opportunity
for skill enhancement will express higher intention to change employers. This is not
surprising given that, as mentioned, individuals increasingly emphasize knowledge
acquisition and personal learning. Furthermore, employees want creativity at work
and in their careers, too. It has been found that employees are more likely to leave
when they perceive that their jobs or work environments do not allow or promote
creativity. Thus, employees increasingly switch employers for reasons other than
general like or dislike of their jobs or organizations. Changing occupations is a huge
decision, though it is becoming common. The individuals have to “start from
scratch” and learn a new set of skills for the new occupation. This creates
psychological distress and financial burdens for the individuals as well their families.
Furthermore, there may be limited choices of occupations. Thus, as in the case of
changing employers, research in this area continues to identify predictors of
occupational turnover. For instance, it has been found that males, younger
individuals, or those who are less satisfied with their jobs have greater intentions to
leave their occupations. Furthermore, occupational context variables, such as
professional role orientation and occupational commitment, negatively predict
occupational turnover intention. Changing occupations can also be precipitated by
social factors. When one’s network is more diverse (i.e., knowing more people of
different backgrounds), one is more likely to change occupations as a result of more
career information and opportunities. Also, when one has more instrumental
relationships (from which one obtains career-related advice), one is more likely to
change occupations. Finally, external-vertical career movement involves changing
to a job with a significant change in responsibility and working for a different
employer (i.e., a diagonal movement). For instance, an associate professor with an
outstanding publication record may be invited by another university to become a
full professor. An outstanding football player may self-recommend himself to
another team and become the new leader of that team. Some people quit their jobs
and become the owners of new firms. Finally, some people may be laid off and
settle for jobs that are of lower importance in different organizations (i.e., external
demotions). This type of career mobility is perhaps the least desired. Not
surprisingly, this group of individuals has more negative job attitudes after
transitions, because they constantly compare their current jobs with their previous
ones. A growing number of employees who are laid off choose to start businesses of
their own. It has been found that certain personality traits, such as being
emotionally stable, distrusting, expedient (less conscientious), and tough-minded,
predict new business start-ups. Entrepreneurial orientation also predicts this type of
career transition. Those with a strong entrepreneurial orientation emphasize
creating something that is new and valuable. Overall, this type of external-vertical
career mobility (business start-ups) is still relatively infrequent, and therefore
research on it is still limited. Bridge employment is another type of external-vertical
career movement. It involves a person’s employment after retirement from full-time
work but before his or her entire withdrawal from the labor force. It usually involves
significantly less workload, such as part-time or temporary work. Researchers have
found that employees report greater likelihood of engaging in bridge employment if
they are healthy, younger, have high organizational tenure, earn lower monthly
salary at the time of retirement, have declined previous early-retirement
opportunities, and have working spouses or dependent children. To conclude, career
mobility involves intra- and interorganizational transitions. Internal-vertical, internal-
horizontal, external-horizontal, and external-vertical career movements have been
increasingly common in recent years. Researchers in this area often focus on one
specific type of career mobility. However, we also need to make sense of the
patterns of career transitions individuals create. For instance, why do some people
prefer internal-horizontal transitions over internal-vertical ones? Also, what is the
relationship between changing employers and changing occupations? This search
for traceable patterns of career mobility is especially important and interesting in
the era of boundaryless careers. Though careers are increasingly boundaryless,
people still act according to some dispositional sources of influence, such as values,
interests, and personality. As such, it is likely that we will be able to predict why
certain individuals create certain patterns of changes in their careers.

FROM
Chapter
The Structure of Career Mobility in Microscopic Perspective
ByJesper B. Sørensen, David B. Grusky
BookSocial Differentiation And Social Inequality

Although more attention has been lavished on mobility tables than perhaps any
other type of sociological data, only rarely have sociologists sought to map the
underlying contours of mobility between actual occupations, where these are
understood as functionally defined positions in the division of labor (cf. Rytina 1992;
Evans and Laumann 1978). The prevailing practice has been to examine patterns of
mobility between "classes" or "strata" formed by aggregating detailed jobs or
occupations in terms of their measured (or presumed) work conditions, market
position, consumption practices, mobility chances, or socioeconomic standing. While
there is surely no consensus on any single class schema, the shared and
unchallenged assumption has been that some sort of aggregation into
supraoccupational categories is appropriate. The latter assumption has limited
empirical inquiry into such fundamental matters as (1) the extent of social closure
at the detailed occupational level, (2) the size and location of interoccupational
cleavages, disjunctures, and discontinuities in mobility chances, and (3) the
macrolevel sources and causes of occupational persistence and mobility. This
chapter provides new insights into these issues by presenting a disaggregate
occupational classification and calibrating it against one of the standard data sets in
the field.