1.

Background
1.1. Psychological mobility

Whereas physical mobility concerns the observable act of crossing boundaries, psychological mobility
refers to people's attitudes toward this act (Lazarova & Taylor, 2009). Just as there are different types of
physical mobility depending on the type of
boundary that is crossed, there are variations of psychological mobility depending on the kind of
transition the attitude relates
to (Forret, Sullivan, & Mainiero, 2010; Lazarova & Taylor, 2009). Logically, people may feel differently
about changing organizations than they do about, for instance, changing functional domain or becoming
unemployed.
Empirical research on the boundaryless career has largely ignored psychological mobility (Lazarova &
Taylor, 2009; Sullivan &
Baruch, 2009). This is partly due to the fact that psychological mobility is a hard construct to grasp
(Rodrigues & Guest, 2010).
Psychological mobility has for instance been defined as a person's preference to cross boundaries
(Lazarova & Taylor, 2009;
Marler, Barringer, & Milkovich, 2003), as the perceived capability to move (Arthur et al., 2005; Sullivan &
Arthur, 2006) and as
the way people interpret a specific career move (Forret et al., 2010). In addition, until recently, there
were no psychometric
instruments to measure the construct (Rodrigues & Guest, 2010; Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). Therefore,
Briscoe et al. (2006)
developed and validated two scales measuring specific types of psychological mobility, i.e. boundaryless
mindset and organizational mobility preference. Boundaryless mindset refers to people's preference
toward initiating and pursuing work-related relationships across departmental and organizational
boundaries. A person with this attitude is enthusiastic about creating and
sustaining active relationships beyond departments and organizations. Organizational mobility
preference refers to a person's
inclination toward physically crossing organizational boundaries. Someone high on this attitude prefers a
career played out across
several employers (Briscoe et al., 2006). These two types of psychological mobility thus concern people's
preference to cross
specific career boundaries.
This study focused on boundaryless mindset and organizational mobility preference. These two types of
psychological
mobility have been clearly defined, which helped to build clear hypotheses and to interpret the results.
In addition, this focus

allowed us to use existing and validated instruments (Briscoe et al., 2006), which will add to the validity
and the replicability

of our analyses.

1.2. Career success

Career success can be defined as accomplishment of desirable work-related outcomes over time (Arthur
et al., 2005). Career
scholars agree that career success has both an objective and a subjective side (Judge, Cable, Boudreau,
& Bretz, 1995; Seibert,
Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). Objective career success refers to those facets of career success that are
tangible and can be observed
by others. Examples of objective career success facets are wage, number of promotions and functional
level (Dries, Pepermans,
Hofmans, & Rypens, 2009). Subjective career success refers to individuals' own perceptions of their
career. It is generally operationalized by job and/or career satisfaction (Heslin, 2005). For a long time,
career success researchers focused almost exclusively
on objective career success (Arthur et al., 2005; Heslin, 2005). However, with careers becoming
increasingly boundaryless, objective career success becomes harder to obtain and therefore, people
may increasingly evaluate their career based on subjectively
chosen standards (Dries, Pepermans, & Carlier, 2008). As a result, the interest in subjective career
success has risen significantly in
the past few decades (Heslin, 2005).
290 M. Verbruggen / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 289–297

2. Hypothesized model
This study examined the impact of boundaryless mindset and organizational mobility preference on
both objective and subjective career success. We expected that the direction of the impact will depend
on the type of psychological mobility and that the
relationships will be partially mediated by physical mobility (see Fig. 1). In what follows, we develop
hypotheses for each of the
building blocks in our model.
2.1. Influence of psychological mobility on career success through physical mobility
2.1.1. Relationship between psychological and physical mobility
In line with theoretical models and empirical research on attitudes and behavior (Ajzen, 1985; Bagozzi,
1992), we expect that people's attitudes toward mobility are related with their actual mobility
behaviors. Thus, people high on psychological mobility will also
experience more actual, physical mobility (Lazarova & Taylor, 2009). Because it has been shown that the
link between attitudes and
behaviors is stronger when a specific attitude is linked to a corresponding specific behavior (Jaccard,
King, & Pomazal, 1974; Norman
et al., 2010), we expect that different types of psychological mobility relate to different types of physical
mobility (Lazarova & Taylor,
2009). In particular, we expect that boundaryless mindset is related to functional mobility, and
organizational mobility preference will
be associated with organizational mobility. The latter is rather straightforward as both the attitude and
the behavior relate to interorganizational mobility. As concerns boundaryless mindset, we expect a
relationship with mobility across functional domains or departments (i.e. ‘functional mobility’). By
physically changing departments, people get the opportunity to meet new people and initiate
new relationships across these departments, the core characteristics of a boundaryless career mindset
(Briscoe et al., 2006).
Hypothesis 1. Boundaryless mindset relates positively to number of functional changes.
Hypothesis 2. Organizational mobility preference relates positively to number of organizational changes.
2.1.2. Relationship between physical mobility and career success
For functional mobility, we expect a positive relationship with both objective and subjective career
success. By changing
departments, people may build experience in a variety of domains and work roles (Campion, Cheraskin,
& Stevens, 1994). This
type of work experience may make them more likely to be promoted. Indeed, organizations often favor
‘generalists’ rather than specialists for higher-level, managerial jobs (London, 1985). Some organizations
even deliberately use functional mobility as a way to
develop potential managers (Baruch, 2004; Dries & Pepermans, 2008; Saari, Johnson, McLaughlin, &
Simmerle, 1988). In addition, because functional mobility contributes to people's skill development and
feeling of competence (Campion et al., 1994) and because
being able to learn (Park, 2010) and feeling competent (Deci & Ryan, 2000) are important motivators at
work, functional mobility
could improve people's job and career satisfaction. For these reasons and in line with earlier studies
(Campion et al., 1994; Longhi
& Brynin, 2010), we expect a positive effect of functional mobility on both objective and subjective
career success.
Hypothesis 3. Functional mobility relates positively to objective career success.
Hypothesis 4. Functional mobility relates positively to subjective career success.
In line with several studies on the outcomes of the number of organizational changes (Fuller, 2008;
Lyness & Thompson, 2000;
Munasinghe & Sigman, 2004; Valcourt & Tolbert, 2003), we expect a negative relationship between
organizational mobility and
objective career success. High rates of organizational mobility may send a negative signal to employers
(i.e. it could be interpreted
as a lack organizational loyalty or as a lack of competences; Messmer, 1998), which is likely to decrease
earnings and promotion
opportunities. We also expect that organizational mobility is negatively related to subjective career
success. Research has shown
subjective
caree success
-
Boundaryless mindset
Function almobility
Organizational mobility
Objective and
Org. mobility preference
+
+
-
+
+
Fig. 1. Hypothesized model.
M. Verbruggen / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 289–297 291
that people with longer organizational tenure – and thus, less organizational mobility – tend to be more
satisfied with their
career (Igbaria & Guimaraes, 1993). In addition, research has suggested that people with poorer
performance (Bishop, 1990;
Munasinghe & Sigman, 2004), lower wages (Kim, 1999; Munasinghe & Sigman, 2004) and lower levels of
job satisfaction
(Cornelissen, 2009; Gesthuizen, 2009) have a higher likelihood of changing organizations. It seems likely
that people who have
a history of less rewarding and less satisfying jobs will evaluate their overall career experiences less
positively and thus report
lower scores with respect to career satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5. Organizational mobility relates negatively to objective career success.
Hypothesis 6. Organizational mobility relates negatively to subjective career success.
2.1.3. Other influences of psychological mobility on career success
For boundaryless mindset, we expect an additional positive impact on both objective and subjective
career success. Because
people with a boundaryless mindset like to build relationships across departments and organizations,
they may have more access
to practical and emotional career support (Seibert et al., 2001; Wolff & Moser, 2009), two benefits
which have been shown to contribute to both objective and subjective career success (Forret &
Dougherty, 2004; Orpen, 1996; Wolff & Moser, 2009). In addition,
as people with a boundaryless mindset like to build relationships across departments and organizations,
it is more likely that they
will build relationships that bridge two not-yet-linked networks. This type of relationships has been
shown to be particularly
beneficial for people's career success (Shipilov, Labianca, Kalnysh, & Kalnysh, 2007, e.g. Brass, 1984;
Burt, 1992).
Hypothesis 7. Boundaryless mindset relates positively to objective career success.
Hypothesis 8. Boundaryless mindset relates positively to subjective career success.
As for organizational mobility preference, we expect an additional negative relationship with objective
and subjective career success. Since people with a high mobility preference prefer their time with their
current employer to be limited, they may be less inclined
to invest in their internal career development. Research has indeed shown that people who are less
likely to stay with their employer,
invest less in their internal employability (De Feyter, Smulders, & Vroome, 2001). In addition, to the
extent that employees with a high
mobility preference are open about or signal their mobility preference, their employer may also be less
likely to give them career support. Indeed, organizations generally give less career support to individuals
who are likely to leave the organization in a foreseeable
time span (De Feyter et al., 2001; Forrier, 2003). Both fewer self-initiated career investments and less
organizational career support
have been shown to negatively impact people's objective and subjective career success (De Vos et al.,
2009; Orpen, 1994).
Hypothesis 9. Organizational mobility preference relates negatively to objective career success.
Hypothesis 10. Organizational mobility preference relates negatively to subjective career success.
3. Method
3.1. Procedure and sample
We collected data from business graduates of the largest university in Belgium. We contacted all
business graduates who had
graduated between 1 and 10 years ago and of whom we had the e-mail address (N= 3054, which
corresponds to 79% of all alumni graduated in this period). Respondents were contacted by e-mail to
participate in our internet survey. Two hundred ninety
three e-mails (9.60%) were returned because of invalid e-mail addresses. The total response rate was
30.32%, with 837 alumni
completing the questionnaire.
Because the focus of this study was on (voluntary) career mobility, we needed a sample in which we
were able to observe this
type of mobility. Firstly, we restricted our sample to respondents who had at least five years of work
experience. In that way, the
respondents had sufficient time in the workforce to have the opportunity to change jobs. This cut-off of
5 years is based on the EU
Labor Force Survey which shows that in Belgium, 50% of all school leavers change jobs within the first 5
years after graduation
(Gangle, 2002). Secondly, we excluded individuals who had been unemployed after their first job (n= 45)
because the job
changes of these individuals are less likely to be voluntary (Alon & Tienda, 2005). Also our choice for
young, highly educated
workers adds to the likelihood of the job changes being voluntary (Drewes, 1993; European Commission,
2005).
Our final sample consisted of 357 individuals, 38% female and 62% male. Forty four percent had
graduated with distinction and
12% with great distinction. On average, the respondents were 32.06 years old (sd= 2.01) and had 8.14
years of working experience (sd= 1.75), of which 5.06 years with their current employer (sd= 3.15).

3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Psychological mobility
We measured boundaryless mindset and organizational mobility preference using the scales of Briscoe
et al. (2006). The
boundaryless mindset scale consisted of eight items, including: “I like tasks at work that require me to
work beyond my own
292 M. Verbruggen / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 289–297
department” and “I enjoy working with people outside of my organization”. The mobility preference
scale consisted of 5 items
measuring the strength of interest in having multiple (as opposed to a single) employers. Example items
include: “I like the predictability that comes with working continuously for the same organization (R)”
and “I prefer to stay in a company I am familiar
with rather than look for employment elsewhere (R)”. Factor analysis revealed two factors which turned
out to have a good internal consistency (α for boundaryless career mindset= .88; α for organizational
mobility preference= .81).
3.2.2. Physical mobility
Respondents were asked how many times they had changed employer (‘organizational mobility’) and
how many times they
had changed functional domain (‘functional mobility’) in their career until now. It was stressed that
changes in functional domain
could occur both while staying with an organization and when changing organizations.
3.2.3. Career success
In line with earlier studies on career success (Heslin, 2005), we assessed objective career success by net
monthly wage and the
number of promotions with the current employer. Because the typical high skewness of wage variables,
we used a natural logarithmic transformation of the wage for our analyses (Seibert et al., 2001). Also in
line with earlier studies (Heslin, 2005), we included two indicators of subjective career success: job
satisfaction and career satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using the
Global Job Satisfaction scale of Warr, Cook, and Wall (1979). Respondents had to evaluate 15 job
aspects (e.g. work content, fellow
workers, recognition you get for good work) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Very dissatisfied; 7 = Extremely
satisfied). Career satisfaction was measured using Heslin's (2003) adaptation of the scale of Greenhaus,
Parasuraman, and Wormley (1990). Participants were asked to evaluate on a 7-point Likert scale how
satisfied they were with 6 career outcomes (i.e. income, skill
development and overall success) relative to their own career aspirations. Both measures turned out to
have a good internal reliability (α for job satisfaction= .88; α for career satisfaction= .89).
3.2.4. Control variables
We controlled for gender (1= female, 0=male), working experience, grades as well as for extraversion
(α= .84) and emotional stability (α= .75). The latter traits, measured using the Big Five Bipolar Rating
Scales (B5BBS-25) (Mervielde, 1992),
were included because research has consistently linked them to career success (Lent & Brown, 2008).
3.3. Analyses
The model was tested using path analysis (procedure CALIS in SAS Version 8). We opted for this
technique because it allows
testing multiple relationships simultaneously. The analysis showed a good fit between the hypothesized
model and the observed
data. All fit-indices exceeded the recommended minimum values (χ²= 6.20 with df= 6 and p-value= .40;
GFI= 1.00; AGFI= .94;
CFI= 1.00; NFI= .99; NNFI= .99). The modification indices also showed that no additional arrows should
be included.
4. Results
Table 1 shows the descriptives for the key variables. First of all, the respondents expressed high
psychological mobility: the
means on both psychological mobility measures are above 3.80 (on a scale from 1 to 5). The level of
physical mobility, on the
other hand, seems rather modest. On average, the respondents experienced one organizational and one
functional change in
their career until now. Finally, the respondents seem to be quite successful in their career and this with
regard to both the objective and the subjective criteria. On average, they reported a net monthly wage
of 2565 Euro, they have had 1.6 promotions with
their current employer and they are quite satisfied with their job and their career (means on both job
and career satisfaction are
higher than 5.40 on a scale from 1 to 7).
Table 1
Descriptives of and correlations between key variables.
m sd 1 2 3 45 67 8
1. Boundaryless mindset 3.85 0.64 –
⁎
2. Organizational mobility preference 3.80 0.73 .41⁎⁎–
⁎
3. Number of organizational changes 1.09 1.06 .01 .22⁎⁎–
⁎.07 −.02 –
4. Number of functional changes 1.08 1.34 .17⁎
⁎.07 .01 .16⁎–
5. Log monthly wage 7.85 0.30 .18⁎
⁎−.07 −.43⁎
6. Number of promotions 1.62 1.39 .16⁎ ⁎⁎.19⁎
⁎.32⁎
⁎⁎–
⁎
7. Job satisfaction 5.41 0.74 .07 −.10 .03 .05 .27⁎⁎.11* –
⁎
8. Career satisfaction 5.48 0.89 .10⁎−.03 .04 .02 .32⁎⁎.20⁎
⁎.68⁎
⁎⁎–
Notes.
⁎
⁎⁎pb.001.
⁎
⁎pb.01.
⁎pb.05.
M. Verbruggen / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 289–297 293
Table 1 further reveals several significant correlations between mobility variables and career success
indicators (i.e. between
boundaryless mindset, wage, promotions and career satisfaction; and between functional mobility,
wage and promotions). Also
noteworthy is the lack of significant correlation between the number of organizational changes and the
number of functional
changes, indicating that it is equally likely that a change in functional domains occurred by staying within
an organization as

when changing organizations.

Next, we look at the results of our path analysis (see Fig. 2). We first examine the impact of
psychological mobility on career

success through physical mobility. As hypothesized, we found that the boundaryless mindset attitude
related with the number of
functional changes and that organizational mobility preference was associated to the number of
organizational changes. We found

no other relationships between the psychological mobility measures and the physical mobility
indicators. We can therefore confirm hypotheses 1 and 2. We also found support for our hypotheses
concerning the relationship between physical mobility and

objective career success. As expected, objective career success was affected positively by functional
mobility (hypothesis 3)

and negatively by organizational mobility (hypothesis 5). However, the impact of organizational mobility
was only significant

for the number of promotions, not for wage. We can therefore only partially confirm hypothesis 5.
Concerning the relationship

between physical mobility and subjective career success, our hypotheses were not supported. Contrary
to our expectations, subjective career success was not affected by functional mobility and it was
positively (and thus not negatively) influenced by organizational mobility. Hence, we have to reject
hypotheses 4 and 6.

We then look at the direct influence of psychological mobility on career success. In line with hypotheses
7 and 10, we found a

positive relationship between the boundaryless mindset and objective career success and a negative
one between organizational

mobility preference and subjective career success. We did not find support for hypotheses 8 and 9: nor
the effect of the boundaryless mindset on subjective career success, nor the impact of organizational
mobility preference on objective career success

were found to be significant.

What is, then, the total impact of psychological mobility on career success? For the boundaryless
mindset, the direct and the

indirect effect strengthened each other, resulting in an overall positive impact of this attitude on
objective career success (total

effect on wage=+.06; total effect on promotions=+.42). Especially the influence on promotions turned
out to be strong. For

organizational mobility preference, the direct effects were more dominant than the indirect effects,
resulting in an overall negative effect on promotions (total effect=−.35) as well as on job (total
effect=−.18) and career satisfactions (total effect=−.13).

Finally, we explore the explained variance of the career success variables. Our model tuned out to
explain 22% of the variance

in wage, 35% of promotions, 12% of job satisfaction and 13% of career satisfaction. These R²s are higher
than those in most other
studies examining career success with a similar sample of young highly educated individuals (Rode,
Arthaud-Day, Mooney, Near,

& Baldwin, 2008).

5. Discussion

In line with our hypotheses, we found that psychological mobility influenced career success, but that the
direction and

strength of the relationship depended on the type of psychological mobility. Having a boundaryless
mindset resulted in higher

wages and more promotions, while having an organizational mobility preference led to less promotions,
lower job satisfaction

and lower career satisfaction.

Remarkably, neither of the psychological mobility indicators were found to positively affect subjective
career success. Because

people with a boundaryless career do not follow the traditional intra-organizational career path, they
are believed to set their

own career agenda and accordingly to attach more importance to subjective career success (Arthur et
al., 2005; Heslin, 2005).

The results suggest that this is not the case or that at least, they do not succeed in attaining more
subjective career success. For

the organizational mobility preference, this was in line with our expectations. For the boundaryless
mindset, however, we

expected a positive influence given the networking preference of people high on this attitude. Though
networking has been

Functional mobility

Wage

Boundaryless mindset Promotions

Org. mobility preference Job satisfaction

Career satisfaction

Organizational mobility

+.29***

+.18**

-.14*
-.21**

+.13*

+.11(*)

+.13*

+.16**

-.40***

+.12(*)

+.14(*)

R²=5.1%

R²=10.9%

R²=21.8%

R²=34.5%

R²=11.6%

R²=13.0%

Fig. 2. Path coefficients.

294 M. Verbruggen / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 289–297

shown to be an important competence for obtaining subjective career success (Wolff & Moser, 2009),
other career competences,

such as career insight (“knowing why”) and career identity (“knowing how”), may also be important
(DeFillippi & Arthur, 1994).

It could be that people low on boundaryless mindset compensate their (presumably) lower networking
skills by better developed

other career competences. Future research might look into this possibility by examining the mediating
role of career competences

in the relationship between psychological mobility and career success.

The results also shed light on the influence of physical mobility on career success. For objective career
success, we found, as

hypothesized, a positive influence of functional mobility and a negative one of organizational mobility.
For subjective career success, our findings were not in line with our expectations. First, we found no
influence of functional mobility. Although functional

mobility may be satisfying because it involves skill and personal development (Park, 2010), it may also
come with a learning cost
and with stress, which may – especially in the short term – decrease one's satisfaction. Both effects may
outweigh each other.
Secondly, we found a positive – thus not the expected negative – influence of organizational mobility. As
we mentioned earlier,
people often change employer because they are dissatisfied in their initial job (Cornelissen, 2009;
Gesthuizen, 2009). Hence, by
changing employer, they may achieve an improvement in job satisfaction. Perhaps, when people
evaluate their overall career,
they attach more importance to this positive evolution rather than to the negative past experiences as
such, resulting in a higher
score on career satisfaction.
Next, this study adds to our understanding of the relationship between psychological and physical
mobility. As expected, we
found that boundaryless mindset was related with functional mobility and organizational mobility
preference was associated

with organizational mobility. Whether or not physical and organizational mobility are related seems to
depend on the congruence

between the type of boundary that the attitude and the behavior relate to. In addition, as there are
many more types of physical

mobility than those measured in this study (e.g. geographical changes, changes of industry), it is
probable that there are also

many more types of psychological mobility. This calls for further conceptualization and
operationalization of the concept of

psychological mobility.

The study revealed that neither psychological, nor physical mobility and neither organizational nor
functional mobility unilaterally lead to career success. In contrast, we found that some forms of
psychological and physical mobility decreased people's

career success. This finding supports the claim made by an increasing number of scholars that
boundaryless careers may have

a downside (Currie, Tempest, & Starkey, 2006; Gunz et al., 2000). Interestingly, we showed that this
downside does not only

relate to physical mobility, as is often proclaimed, but also to psychological mobility. In addition, we
found this negative impact

with young, highly educated individuals, who are generally believed to benefit from having a
boundaryless career.

Finally, this study showed that psychological and physical mobility have partly different effects on career
success. Therefore,
researchers should be cautious when using physical mobility as a proxy for psychological mobility
(Briscoe et al., 2006). Even

though the two forms of mobility are related significantly, using the former as a proxy for the latter may
yield to wrong

conclusions.

5.1. Limitations

This study is not without limitations. First, our findings are based on self-report data and may be subject
to common method

variance. To validate our findings, future research may include more objective measures, for instance
wage and promotion data

from the employer. We note, however, that previous research has shown that self-report measures of
objective career success

correlate highly with company records (De Vos et al., 2009; Judge et al., 1995). Secondly, because we
used cross-sectional data,

we need to be cautious in causal attributions. It may for instance be that career success affected
people's psychological mobility

instead of vice versa. People who are highly successful, may for instance become more self-confident
and may therefore start to

feel more independent. However, we performed some additional tests of alternative models and they
did not yield a better fit

with the data. Finally, it is important to mention the potential influence of our sample. We tested our
model with a specific sample

of young business alumni because we expected that even for this rather privileged group, psychological
mobility could entail

negative consequences. However, because we focused on this specific sample, some of our findings may
not be generalizable to

other samples. Future research should therefore further examine the impact of different forms of
psychological and physical

mobility with other samples.

In conclusion, this study showed that psychological mobility has an impact on career success, but that
this impact is not unilaterally positive — not even within a sample of young, highly educated people. In
that way, this study's findings support the claim

that the boundaryless career may have a potential downside, even for more privileged groups. In
addition, this study's findings
point to the need to further conceptualize and operationalize psychological mobility.
1. Introduction There have been calls for greater clarity of terms and further conceptualization of the
boundaryless career (e.g., Inkson, 2002; Pringle & Mallon, 2003; Sullivan, 1999) and its distinction from
the concept of the protean career (Briscoe, Hall, & DeMuth, 2006; Hall, 1996; Hall, Briscoe, & Kram,
1997). Some authors have considered the boundaryless career

as involving only physical changes in work arrangements. In contrast, other authors have considered the
protean career concept as involving only psychological changes. However, this separation between
physical (or objective) career changes and psychological (or subjective) career changes neglects the
interdependence between the physical and psychological career worlds. The result is a body of work
that lacks applicability for the individual, who needs to take both physical and psychological issues into
account. Similarly, it lacks applicability for the practicing manager or career counselor who seeks to
support the individual. While recent research has begun to recognize the links between physical and
psychological career changes (e.g., Marler, Barringer, & Milkovich, 2002; Peiperl, Arthur, GoVee, &
Morris, 2000; Valcour & Tolbert, 2003), there still remain rich opportunities for further research. In this
article, we seek to stimulate new research by focusing on two questions. First, how can we further
clarify and elaborate on the meaning of the boundaryless career? Second, how can we better explore
the possible interaction of mobility across (a) physical and (b) psychological boundaries? We begin by
examining Arthur and Rousseau’s (1996) deWnition of the boundaryless career as well as its subsequent
interpretation and application. Next, we present a model to better illustrate the physical and
psychological aspects of boundaryless careers. Using this model as a basis, we explore how career
competencies, gender, culture, and individual diVerences inXuence individuals’ opportunities for
physical and psychological mobility. Finally, we discuss the implications of these ideas for both practice
and future research. 2. Mobility across physical and psychological boundaries Arthur and Rousseau’s
1996 book, The Boundaryless Career, encouraged researchers to rethink their ideas of what a career
entails, and raised a number of new questions and lines of inquiry. In the book they detailed six diVerent
meanings of boundaryless careers, involving careers: (1) like the stereotypical Silicon Valley career, that
move across the boundaries of separate employers; (2) like those of academics or carpenters, that draw
validation—and marketability— from outside the present employer; (3) like those of real-estate agents,
that are sustained by external networks or information; (4) that break traditional organizational
assumptions about hierarchy and career advancement; (5) that involve an individual rejecting existing
career opportunities for personal or family reasons; and (6) that are based on the interpretation of the
career actor, who may perceive a boundaryless future regardless of structural constraints. Arthur and
Rousseau (1996, p. 6) also stated that a common factor in all these deWnitions was “ƒ one of
independence from, rather than dependence on, traditional organizational career arrangements.”
However, it has subsequently been noted that there can be mobility across other kinds of boundaries—
for example, occupational or cultural boundaries—which may also contribute to what we interpret to be
boundaryless careers (Gunz, Evans, & Jalland, 2000; Inkson, this issue; Sullivan & Mainiero, 2000).

Since the publication of Arthur and Rousseau’s book, a number of researchers have focused on physical
mobility across boundaries invoked by meanings 1 and 4. However, relatively few researchers have
examined mobility across, or changes to, psychological boundaries described in meanings 2, 3, 5, and 6.
For example, Sullivan’s (1999) review of the empirical careers literature found that sixteen studies
examined the crossing of physical boundaries (e.g., between occupations, Wrms, levels) whereas only
three studies focused relationships across those boundaries. More recently, Arthur, Khapova, and
Wilderom (2005) 11-year review of career success research reported that few of the 80 articles
examined, conceptualized or operationalized success in ways that could add to our understanding of
boundaryless careers. Only one-third of the articles recognized any two-way interdependence between
objective and subjective career success, while a much lower fraction acknowledged the inXuence of
either inter-organizational mobility or extra-organizational support on career success. Thus, scholars
have emphasized physical mobility across boundaries at the cost of neglecting psychological mobility
and its relationship to physical mobility. The possible reasons for this emphasis on physical mobility may
be twofold. First, although there are two types of mobility—the physical, which is the transition across
boundaries and the psychological, which is the perception of the capacity to make transitions—
researchers appear to have viewed boundaryless careers as the Wrst type. They have focused on
physical mobility between jobs, employers or industries. Researchers have been less interested in the
second type of mobility, and in particular the perceived capacity for change that underlies Arthur and
Rousseau’s (1996, p. 6) meaning 6, “ƒ the interpretation of the career actor, who may perceive a
boundaryless future regardless of structural constraints.” Second, researchers may Wnd it easier to
measure physical mobility (e.g., counting the number of times someone changed jobs, employers or
occupations) than to measure perceptions about psychological mobility. It is perhaps not surprising that
most studies have operationalized boundaryless careers in terms of physical mobility. Because of the
emphasis on physical mobility, the versatility of the boundaryless career concept is not always
acknowledged. Recognizing this versatility suggests that future conceptual and empirical research needs
to question the potential diVerence between boundaryless careers characterized primarily by physical
mobility (that is, actual movement between jobs, Wrms, occupations, and countries) versus
boundaryless careers characterized primarily by psychological mobility (that is, the capacity to move as
seen through the mind of the career actor). Moreover, as previously noted, it is relatively easy to
measure physical mobility, but it is more diYcult to measure psychological mobility (see Briscoe et al.,
2006). For example, how could the complexities of the psychological mobility in the following situations
be measured? John2 once saw himself as a manager seeking advancement within his present company
(a traditional organizational career). Now at midlife, he has refused further promotions to spend more
time with his children (Arthur and Rousseau’s meaning 5), accepting instead lateral transfers that permit
reXective, on-the-job learning (Arthur and Rousseau’s meaning 4)

Suzanne is a middle manager seen by others as plateaued in her present organization. However, she
anticipates a boundaryless future because she sees her skills as marketable (Arthur and Rousseau’s
meaning 6). She has not yet crossed physical boundaries between organizations or occupations, but
intends to do so. In addition to measuring complex physical and psychological mobility, how can career
changes that represent varying combinations of physical and psychological mobility, and the
interdependency between them be measured? Consider the following example: Cindy happily viewed
herself as company accountant until she grew bored with her job. She turned to her professional
association for validation of her abilities (Arthur and Rousseau’s meaning 2). This led to new
opportunities to provide accounting services that she is now pursuing through a small home-based
business. Freed from the constraints her employer once placed on her, she now has a substantial
support system outside that employer (Arthur and Rousseau’s

3. A model of boundaryless careers The growing complexity of the contemporary career landscape, as
well as the many inter-connected factors that can inXuence career decisions, make it increasingly
challenging for researchers to capture diVerent types of boundaryless career mobility. To respond to
this challenge, we suggest a deWnition of a boundaryless career as one that involves physical and/or
psychological career mobility. Such a career can be then viewed as characterized by varying levels of
physical and psychological mobility. Thus, boundaryless careers can be represented by the model
depicted in Fig. 1, with physical Fig. 1. Two dimensions of boundaryless careers. Quadrant 3 Quadrant 4
High Psychological Mobility Low Quadrant 1 Quadrant 2 Low High Physical Mobility

mobility along the horizontal continuum and psychological mobility along the vertical continuum.
According to the model, having a boundaryless career is not an “either or” proposition as suggested by
some studies. Rather, a boundaryless career can be viewed and operationalized by the degree of
mobility exhibited by the career actor along both the physical and psychological continua. Both physical
and psychological mobility—and the interdependence between them—can thereby be recognized and
subsequently measured. To facilitate discussion of the model, we focus on four “pure types” of careers,
with these four types reXecting the four diVerent quadrants, as follows. 3.1. Quadrant 1 Careers in this
quadrant exhibit low levels of both physical and psychological mobility. In some circumstances this kind
of career can appeal to both parties to an employment contract. Consider Alex, a long-tenured NASA
engineer. Despite having an advanced education, his highly specialized knowledge may have low
transferability because NASA is the only employer requiring this knowledge. Moreover, enjoying the job
security and unique challenges of the job, he may have little desire to change employers. Both physical
and psychological boundaries are likely to remain. However, unlike the career of the NASA engineer,
other careers in this quadrant may not be so enduring. Consider Vicki who works in a bank and has a
social life that relies heavily on her fellow workers. Mergers and acquisitions in the industry may not
only threaten the stability of her social life, but also the opportunities for her Wnding similar
employment elsewhere. Likewise, those lacking basic skills and training, as well as the chronically
unemployed, may also have careers in this quadrant. 3.2. Quadrant 2 Careers in this quadrant have high
levels of physical mobility but low levels of psychological mobility. For instance, Colin, a young person
bent on seeing the world, may oVer his skills as a waiter or bartender in a series of temporary jobs that
provide the opportunity to travel. Helen, a schoolteacher, may change jobs at short notice to follow the
geographically mobile career of her partner, but may not seek any psychological beneWt from such a job
change. The common factor in such careers is that they cross physical boundaries but psychological
boundaries remain as they were. Some careers in this quadrant may become dysfunctional as they
unfold. Consider Peter, a computer programmer seeking to maximize income by applying his existing
programming skills. Those skills may remain in demand for some time, but only because programmers
willing to work on older systems are in limited supply. As the number of these systems dwindles, Peter
may Wnd fewer and fewer opportunities for further employment. 3.3. Quadrant 3 Careers in this
quadrant have low levels of physical mobility but high levels of psychological mobility. Individuals with
these types of careers recognize and act on the potential for psychological career mobility. They sustain
high expectations of their own employability—for example, as respected academics, experienced
management consultantsor skilled nurses—without changing employers. Other kinds of psychological
mobility can occur when individuals seek personal growth outside the workplace (e.g., by taking adult
education classes or doing volunteer work), or by introducing new ideas into the workplace. However,
psychological mobility can also cause problems. Sarah, a research chemist, felt psychologically
boundaryless because of her conWdence in her own ability. Then Sarah’s employer assigned her work
unrelated to her research specialization, making her unattractive to potential employers. Sarah’s
extreme conWdence in her own abilities caused her to lose touch with developments in her Weld,
making it diYcult for her to Wnd a more psychologically meaningful work situation. Similarly, Bob has
advanced occupational skills but low emotional intelligence. Although he sustains a sense of
psychological mobility, he fails to act on feedback to improve his interpersonal skills, and is unable to
earn promotions or gain employment with other organizations.

4. Some research propositions

In this section, we suggest a number of research propositions based on the model previously described.
These propositions cover diVerences in individuals’ career competencies,

gender, culture, and individual characteristics. They are oVered as illustrative of a much

larger body of research topics that might be pursued.

4.1. Boundaryless careers and career competencies

Two individuals may be in the same line of work, the same organization and the same

industry but have very diVerent levels of physical and psychological mobility because of

S.E. Sullivan, M.B. Arthur / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 19–29 25

their diVerent career competencies. Career competencies have been described to reXect

three diVerent “ways of knowing” that can be applied and adapted to shifting career

opportunities (DeFillippi & Arthur, 1996). The three ways of knowing involve an individual’s motivation
and identity (knowing-why), skills and expertise (knowing-how) and

relationships and reputation (knowing-whom). Knowing-why competencies underlie the

overall energy and identiWcation a person may bring to the tasks, projects, and

employment cultures that he/she faces. Knowing-how competencies relate to the skills

and knowledge, including tacit knowledge, needed for task or job performance. Knowing-whom
competencies refer to relationships with colleagues, professional associations,

and friends that provide needed visibility, access to new opportunity, and sources of

information.

The three ways of knowing are also interdependent. For example, when knowing-why

motivation to gain fresh experience stimulates a search for new knowing-how job challenges that in turn
bring about new knowing-whom connections. In this way, the accumulation of new career competencies
in any of the three ways of knowing can trigger the

pursuit of further competencies in the other two.

The eVect of the accumulation of career competencies upon the boundaryless career has

recently been examined by Eby, Butts, and Lockwood (2003). They found that those with

greater levels of knowing-why competencies (proactive personality, openness to experience, and career
insight), knowing-how competencies (career/job-related skills, career identity), and knowing-whom
competencies (mentor, internal networks, and external
networks) reported greater levels of perceived career success and internal and external

marketability. Career theory and evidence therefore suggests:

Proposition 1. Those with greater career competencies are more likely to have experienced

more, and have more opportunities for, psychological and physical mobility than those

with lower career competencies.

Previous research (e.g., Schein, 1978; Sullivan, Martin, Carden, & Mainiero, 2004) suggests that as
individuals gain experience and maturity, unless they are faced with a crisis,

they make incremental career changes. In the circumstances of a job loss, a person may be

obliged to take on both physical and psychological mobility at the same time. However, in

other circumstances, the unfolding of physical and psychological mobility may be sequential rather than
simultaneous. Someone in Quadrant 1 would be more likely to switch to

psychological mobility (Quadrant 3) if Wrst persuaded, perhaps through career coaching

sessions, that his/her skills were transferable. Once established in Quadrant 3, the person

may subsequently seek and Wnd a new employer that takes better advantage of those skills.

Proposition 2. Individuals, through enhancing career competencies, are more likely to

increase their opportunities for either psychological or physical mobility than to increase

both simultaneously.

4.2. Gender

Research indicates that men and women are likely to enact their careers diVerently

because of social and psychological gender diVerences (Mainiero, 1994a, 1994b; Mainiero &

Sullivan, 2006; Powell & Mainiero, 1992). Societal norms and expectations have often

restricted women’s educational, occupational, and job choices (Powell, 1993, 1999). Research

26 S.E. Sullivan, M.B. Arthur / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 19–29

has found gender diVerences in relation to work/nonwork balance, mentoring, work outcomes (such as
promotions, stress, and career satisfaction), work policies, and sexual harassment and discrimination
(Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; Konrad,

Ritchie, Lieb, & Corrigall, 2000; Nelson, 2000; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1997).

Women, in general, may have less freedom than men to engage in physical mobility. For

instance, a woman may reject an opportunity than requires relocation or increased travel
because her husband may be unable or unwilling to move, she is caring for an ill dependant, or there is a
lack of quality childcare in the new locale. Similarly, men in general may

have less freedom than women to engage in psychological mobility because social expectations may
oblige them to conform to traditional work roles or to provide for their families

(Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005).

Proposition 3. Men are more likely to have greater opportunities for physical mobility

whereas women are more likely to have greater opportunities for psychological mobility.

4.3. Cultural diVerences

Cultural diVerences may also inXuence psychological and physical mobility. Hofstede

(1980, 1984) has suggested that individualism-collectivism is a bipolar variable that diVerentiates
cultures. Individualist cultures emphasize personal goals and equity-based

rewards, social networking, and promotions. Collectivist cultures emphasize group goals

and rewards as well as job security. In collectivist cultures the individual is more likely to

look to the existing group or organization for evidence of career success.

Proposition 4. People in individualistic cultures are more likely to change work groups or

organizations, and to exhibit physical mobility; in contrast, people in collectivist cultures

are more likely to stay in their work groups or organizations, and to exhibit psychological

mobility.

4.4. Individual diVerences

Ramamoorthy and Carroll (1998) have argued that the individualism-collectivism construct may also
distinguish individual orientations. Thus, individuals with an individualistic orientation will prefer
individually based human resource management systems (e.g.,

individual incentive schemes, merit-based hiring, and promotion) whereas individuals with

collectivist orientations will prefer group-based human resource management systems (e.g.,

jobs designed around group functions, group incentives).

Proposition 5. People with individual orientations are more likely to recognize opportunities for and
exhibit physical mobility; in contrast, people with collectivist orientations are

more likely to recognize opportunities for and exhibit psychological mobility

5. A future research agenda

The Wve propositions we have presented illustrate some possible avenues for future

research and may be extended to include other variables. In this section, we suggest that the
boundaryless career concept can encourage an even larger research program, and detail

three aspects of this agenda.

S.E. Sullivan, M.B. Arthur / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 19–29 27

5.1. Building upon the Wve propositions

Propositions 1–5 may be extended to include propositions involving other independent

variables, or other combinations of variables, that space preclude us from discussing here.

For example, beyond the extent of a person’s overall career competencies (Propositions 1

and 2) lay a number of questions about particular combinations of those competencies. A

person with a high (knowing-why) need for security and a weak (knowing-whom) occupational network
may be expected to be low on psychological mobility even if that person

has strong and highly transferable (knowing-how) occupational skills. Further demographic variables,
such as race, age, and socio-economic status may be anticipated to interact with gender (Proposition 3).
Hypotheses about diVerences between national cultures

(Proposition 4) may be reWned to also cover the organizational and/or occupational cultures in which a
career is situated. Further demographic factors, such as race, age, and

diVerences between generations (Proposition 3), and personality variables, such as the “big

Wve” personality dimensions (Proposition 5), could also be examined.

5.2. Going beyond organizational career samples

Much previous research, especially concerning managerial careers, has been limited to a

single organizational setting, thereby preventing the examination of boundaryless career

phenomena (Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005; Sullivan, 1999). An instructive example

based on an alternative sampling strategy is that of Eby and associates (2003). They studied 458
university alumni representing a range of diVerent organizations, occupations,

industries, and employment situations. Similar to Eby and associates, Mainiero and Sullivan (2005)
captured a variety of diVerent employment experiences, industries, and occupations. They used a multi-
source approach, including the collection of data via: (a) an email

survey of over 100 high achieving women belonging to a national association of female

professionals; (b) an on-line survey of over 1000 men and women; and (c) a series of indepth online
“conversations” with 27 men and women about their careers. By using both

quantitative and qualitative methods, Mainiero and Sullivan’s study illustrates a strategy

for obtaining richer information about individuals’ physical and psychological mobility.

5.3. Using action research

The boundaryless career model suggested by this article could be used as the foundation

for action research. Initial diagnostic work could determine which area of the model best

reXects a person’s career situation. Next, a series of interventions could be designed to

assist each person’s transition between adjacent quadrants. Such passages could help individuals
experiment with greater degrees of physical and psychological mobility—thereby

potentially increasing the number of options in each individual’s future career. A series of

research measures could be applied during the process to test the utility of the interventions used. This
kind of action research design may help both individuals and their present

employers to adapt existing employment arrangements to the uncertainties of the contemporary

knowledge-driven economy. Similarly, such action research models may help scholars develop much
needed measures of psychological mobility.

The use of action research could be combined with eVorts to increase managerial eVectiveness. For
instance, in the contemporary career world it is considered important for

28 S.E. Sullivan, M.B. Arthur / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 19–29

managers to hold “eVective career discussions” with their employees (Kidd, Hirsh, & Jackson, 2004).
These discussions are considered to help individuals to develop more accurate

and more nuanced pictures of their career situations, including the situation inside the current
organization. In less routine situations, such as downsizing or moving jobs oVshore,

there is a greater sense of urgency in such exchanges. Although all employees will be

aVected by such changes, individual reactions to the prospect of either physical and/or psychological
mobility will vary. By using the model detailed in this article to anticipate and

respond to these diVerent reactions, managers may be better able to assist their employees.

Likewise, researchers observing these career discussions as they happen may gain a greater

understanding of how careers unfold.

In conclusion, the concept of the boundaryless career can be clariWed by viewing mobility as measured
along two continua, one physical, one psychological. This portrayal of the

boundaryless career invites scholars to bring greater precision to research endeavors concerned with
such variables as career competencies, gender, culture, and individual diVerences. It also invites scholars
to use a variety of data collection and research designs,

including scholars partnering with managers to use action research to assist employees in

their quest for more satisfactory careers. Attention to this future career research agenda

should bring greater insights into today’s complex careers.