Researchers have emphasized the positive and negative influences of ambivalent leader-follower relationships, but it is not clear when the ambivalent relationship is associated with good or bad influences. To answer this question, we reviewed the definition and identified 10 different types of ambivalent leader-follower relationships. Further, we demonstrate that the negative outcomes (more inflexibility, disengagement, and worse performance) can be explained by the workplace stressor perspective, and that the positive outcomes (more flexibility, engagement, and better performance) can be explained by paradox view. Finally, drawing from conservation of resources (COR) theory, we integrate workplace stressor framework and the paradox view to address when the ambivalent leader-follower relationship is beneficial or detrimental for followers. We proposed that the degree of ambivalence, support from the third party, and integrative complexity of follower will influence the possible positive or negative influences. Limitations and future directions were also discussed.

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to review the research about organizational career management (OCM) and provide an integrated understanding of OCM research.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper, the authors systematically review 85 OCM-related papers published in highly influential journals over the past four decades (1978–2021). This paper reviews the definitions, measurements, antecedents, outcomes, mediators and moderators of OCM.FindingsDiverse definitions of OCM exist, with three key common factors: what should be included in OCM, who is responsible for OCM and the goal of OCM. Scholars use different OCM measures, which might be due to different nations, industries, groups and scale development methods. More than 20 papers demonstrated the positive influences of OCM, providing convincing evidence of the necessity of OCM. About 90% of the current papers we reviewed (27 out of 30 papers) dominantly examined the influence of OCM on individuals’ attitudes or work behavior. The influence of OCM on organizational outcomes was less addressed.Originality/valueFirst, the authors review the existing OCM measurements and distinguish two ways of measuring OCM: OCMP (organizational level, rated by HR managers or HR vice president or CEO, capturing the real practices) and POCM (Perceived OCM, individual level, rated by employees, capturing subjective perception of practices). This distinction reduces the ambiguity in existing measurements. Second, we summarize the empirical findings of OCM, including the antecedents, outcomes, mediators and moderators. These findings uncover the benefits/risks of OCM and the factors that may influence its effectiveness. Third, the review provides several practical implications as the findings can help managers improve their career development programs.

Despite the widely recognized change of career management in the new career era, little is known about whether current organizational career management practices differ from previous ones. Using an open‐ended survey and literature review, this study develops a scale of organizational career management that shows some features of the new career era (e.g. boundaryless career, protean career, kaleidoscope career, etc.) in China. We conducted two independent studies (N = 320; N = 216) to examine the reliability and validity of the scale. The final organizational career management scale includes four dimensions: boundaryless work, work‐life balance policies, training and development and diversification. Further, we tested both the possible bright side and dark side of organizational career management in contemporary organizations using 179 employees over a two‐month interval. We found that both a bright side (i.e. higher organizational commitment and less turnover intention) and a dark side (i.e. higher career competency and more likely to leave organizations) exist. This article discusses the contributions, practical complications, limitations and future research directions.

No abstract